Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Terry Williams]: No

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: more. Will the senate please come to order? We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional this morning. Thank you. We will now take our moment to recognize our pages. The families can feel free to come all the way up here so that you you got

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: pictures. Okay.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Ram Gilman.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Did you get that?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Wilson. Thank you to all the families.

[Senator Terry Williams]: You wanna do a quick picture like that?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Absolutely. For for loaning us your children. They did great work. And if they're anything like mine was when he was here, you're gonna really dread going back to school.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Come on, guys. Let's get a group photo.

[Senator John Benson]: Are we?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Jam it in there any way we can.

[Senator John Morley III]: Alright, on 3.

[Senator Scott Beck]: 123.

[Senator John Morley III]: You, guys. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: John.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Got great ears. Minor territory.

[Senator Terry Williams]: It grows.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to order? Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have h seven ten being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. Orders of the day. I believe senator from Chittenden, we're going to start with third reading. We have third reading of h nine zero seven. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk]: H nine zero seven, an act relating to legislative review of reporting requirements.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we passed h nine zero seven in concurrence with proposal of amendment.

[Senator John Morley III]: We've got to do those next on the list. Oh, two thirty was first. Yes. He said we

[Senator John Benson]: were going back to it.

[Senator John Morley III]: Okay. Good thing I brought my script up for it.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: S two thirty was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. Question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Mister president, I am not sure I even need to ask this, but unless you object, I'm gonna speak to both the bill as received from the house and the proposed amendment in the calendar.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Please do. Thank you.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: As the senators will recall, s two thirty is an employment practices bill combining several bills containing technical corrections to existing law. That is what left the senate. The house added additional sections restricting certain provisions in employment contracts with language your Senate Economic Development Committee had not yet taken testimony on. So in order to duly vet that language, we had to pass over this bill a few times. But we are now ready to take this bill out today, and I thank the Senate for their patience on this. Your Senate fini your Senate Economic Development Committee is proposing further amendment on this new language that was received from the House, and I'll now speak to the whole bill with specific emphasis on items that changed in what we sent to them. And then I'll speak to the last couple of sections, which is the new language. And just since they sent us new language, we're sending them a little bit of new language too, just to, you know, keep the volleyball going back and forth. Section one is unchanged from what we sent the house. As a reminder, a lot of this bill is cleanup language, aligning the more recently passed Parental and Family Leave Act with the long standing Fair Employment Act that has been law for decades. I'm not gonna elaborate on that section, but happy to answer questions, but it is what we already voted on and passed earlier this session. Section two, similarly, is the language we sent them minus a small bit. Through further testimony in the House and subsequently in the Senate, it was determined that the additional self attestation language was not necessary to accomplish the same means for these purposes, so the house removed that language. The rest of the language remains unchanged, and in the interest of time, I'm not gonna go over it again. Happy to answer questions. Section three also remains unchanged from what we sent them. That has to do with Fair Employment Act, again, host the alignment, cleaning up some things that are no longer relevant in statute. So that brings us to a new section that they added section three a, and this has to do with definitions under Vermont's minimum wage. I think I've mentioned this before. I served on the South Burlington City Council, and I received a $1,200 a year stipend. And if you did the division of how many hours I put into that role divided by $1,212,100 dollars, I think I made about 17¢ an hour or so. So what this is gonna do is really address those circumstances, aligning current practice with law. So this section removes elected and appointed municipal officers from the definition of employee for the purposes of Vermont's minimum wage and overtime laws. We want to keep paying those city councilors very small amounts of money for all the good work that they do because that's the way it ought to be. Again, attempts at humor, try to lighten up these floor beaches. Alright. So this change is consistent with current practice and with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. This language was mutually developed, agreed upon by the VLCT and the Vermont Department of Labor and is supported by the Vermont Clerks and Treasurer's Associations. Current practice is that the majority of municipal officials in Vermont are volunteers. 70% of the municipalities have less than 2,500 people, and this change would affect only elected and appointed positions, select board members, mayor, clerks, treasurers, JCs, DCAs, commission members, etcetera, who typically receive no compensation or, as I just mentioned in my example, an annual stipend. And this would not conflict with any negotiated CBAs because it's extremely unlikely that an elected or appointed per person could be a unionized position and that the CBA would still stand in that rare case. So same in municipal ordinances or living wage and setting stipends. So this just allows for current practice to continue to issue these stipends for those elected and appointed officials without having any interpretable conflict with our minimum wage laws. So your Senate Economic Development Committee concurred with that change. The House also added a section three b with language around non competes. This language received from the House added a prohibition on agreements not to compete. This is what I'm going spend more time talking about, and that's what we spent more time in your committee talking about as well. We do have a further proposal amendment on this section. So the language received from the House adding a prohibition on agreements not to compete compete for non exempt employees and additional provisions in agreements with health care providers. Your Senate Economic Development Committee had concerns with drawing a line along exempt versus nonexempt. I would expect that many of this body would this senate would know and understand what the difference between the two are, that an exempt employee is somebody that you don't pay overtime wages for, that you usually have benefits so you don't have to clock track the hours, whereas nonexempt is you pay them hourly, there's overtime rates that apply, and there's more that go in there. So this what received from the House, would have been a we would have been the first state to apply this non compete language along this nonexempt exempt line. And it would have been it would have prevented employers with high paid contract workers from using this tool while also ignoring low paid exempt workers putting in long hours, working for less than $60,000 a year, but putting in fifty five, sixty hours a week. And so it just to exempt those non competes applicability, to not apply it to those gave this committee pause. So the general sense was that the appropriate threshold for restricting non competes is along an income threshold as many other states have done. But acknowledging that this was a topic of great debate in the house without resolution earlier in the session, and that this non exempt exempt approach was a last minute, from my understanding, addition to the bill without being fully vetted in that other chamber that we have no control over, your Senate Economic Development Committee did not see this nonexempt exempt division line as ready for prime time. We did though see merit in these non compete provisions for health care workers in Vermont, which also came over to us from the House. And importantly, this language was thoroughly that we did retain. So what you'll see in the amendment is language that the House did send us from the health care workers that we just had to re add to separate it out from the broader exempt nonexempt division lines. So it's a looks like a lot of new language, but a lot of it was what the House sent us. Okay? These where was I? So we did see merit. This language was thoroughly vetted by a working group last year and is aligned with what 16 other states have done. But I just wanna elaborate on this because it's an important topic. Noncompete clauses are extensive in healthcare. Estimates from the American Medical Association is that they affect between thirty seven and forty five percent of physicians nationwide. They may impact up to forty five percent of healthcare workers as a whole. The primary ethical and policy issues with non competes in healthcare are that they restrict patients' access to care, disrupt care continuity by forcing providers to move or to stop practicing, and to limit clinician autonomy, potentially harming communities, especially in underserved areas. There are traveling nurses that come to Vermont and they have these non competes applied, so they might be working up here and they might really like Vermont because Vermont's great, and they might wanna work here and move here, but these non competes would prevent them from maybe taking the job at that medical services space here in Vermont. This would address it in the same way that 16 other states have done in making those non competes not applicable for those that are operating in Vermont. So let me elaborate on the details of that since this is where we spent a lot of time, again, justifying the multiple Passovers. All right, so the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission and the American Medical Association have both voiced concerns with the impact of these non competes in healthcare. Just last September, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission sent letters to several health care employers and staffing per firms urging them to conduct comprehensive review of their employment agreements, including any noncompetes or restrictive agreements to ensure that they are appropriately tailored and comply with the law. The letters from the FTC stated, if I may read a short quote,

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: non

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: competes may have particularly harmful effects in healthcare markets where they can restrict patients' choices of who provides their medical care, including critically in rural areas where medical services are already stretched thin. So, as I mentioned, at least four states have statutes that ban non competes for physicians and or healthcare providers in all contexts. Those include Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. Many additional state laws ban non competes in healthcare with certain exceptions that vary from state to state, including Oregon, Oregon, Maryland, Florida, Rhode Island, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. So with that background, your Senate Economic Development supported this well vetted language for health care workers to give individuals in this field here in Vermont more options and not less. So this section since this is new and it's noncompete, I will just do a quick, elaboration of what's in this section. And you could read this in both the underlying, bill as received from the house as well as in the amendment, but the amendment might make more sense because I believe that's what we're voting on first. Yep. So this does add a new section to the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, and it voids the following provisions and contracts or agreements where health care providers have restrictions on the provision of health care services in any geographical area for any period of time after termination of the contractual relationship. Additionally, limitations on separating health care providers' ability to provide notice of their change of employment, so this provides restrictions on these things. Also voids nondisparagement clauses, voids provisions that are inconsistent with Vermont law, and clauses requiring litigation arising from the performance of a contract or agreement in Vermont to be litigated in another state. Subsection B also lists the information that may be provided to patients by a separated health care provider. C clarifies what the restrictions placed on agreements in health care providers in subsection A do not apply to with contracts with third party companies and non clinical businesses and support services. Subsection defines the term health care provider. Subsection incorporates a non retaliation provision and penalty and enforcement provisions of the Fair Employment Practices Act to violations of this section. Subsection F provides the new provision, that shall apply prospectively to contracts, agreements, and health care providers entered into or on after on or after 07/01/2026, I. E. It does not apply to existing agreements with health care providers. Lastly, since the house sent us some new language, we wanted to do some of the same. So section three c is a bit of session law, just addressing a concern brought to us about current policies on solicitation, on correctional facilities in Vermont. This language simply asks the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services to develop a proposal governing permissible and impermissible solicitation on in parking lots at correctional facilities. The proposal would be provided by the Secretary of Administration for the Secretary's consideration for adoption on or before 01/01/2027. Section four has no changes to the effective dates, and your senate economic development committee took a straw poll on this bill with this proposed amendment resulting in a five o o vote, and we ask the senate to concur. I thank the president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to recognize the senator Chittenden's pay raise in his transition from the Burlington Board of Aldermen to the Vermont Senate. A few years ago, I did figure out what the approximate per hour value of our salary was and I figured it was somewhere in the order of $4 per hour. So I I recognize the senator from Chittenden's significant pay raise. Thank you, mister.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Chittenden has moved that the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have concurred with the house proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment on s two thirty. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, I would move that, the senate not, take up two eighteen for override of the governor's veto, but instead recommit s two eighteen and act relating to reducing chloride contamination of state waters to the committee on natural resource.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden has moved that s two eighteen be committed to the committee on natural resources and energy. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and s two eighteen will be referred to natural resources and energy. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, the next three bills are judiciary bills. I have discussed these with the chair of judiciary. They are part of larger bargaining that is ongoing. So with that said, I would move that we pass over age six zero six, age nine thirty seven, and s two zero nine. Having already completed h nine zero seven, that would take us to h seven forty and activating to the greenhouse gas.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: We have on the calendar of action, h seven forty introduced on 01/21/2026. It was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence affecting the revenue of the state. The bill was referred to the committee on finance, which rec recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk]: H seven forty, an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. This morning as I came into the state house, I passed multiple gas stations, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you what I saw. I think we're all aware. Gas prices right now are painful, something like $4.59 a gallon and really gas prices, gasoline prices are up 46% since January 2025. I'm old enough to remember actually when gas was 89¢ a gallon. Those days are gone. They're not coming back. And this bill would give us the data necessary to craft and evaluate targeted policies to reduce our dependence on foreign high cost fuels. This is a moment during which it would be immensely helpful to have accurate data to know how Vermonters in various districts, cities, and towns are being affected by these high prices. What parts of the state are particularly dependent on kerosene? How much is a particular city or town spending on propane? As of right now, we don't know. Oh, hang on a second. I'm gonna pause. That handout is for $7.27. That's okay. Michael, that's okay. My no worries. Little preview bills to come. Oh, oh, so we're not passing this bill.

[Senator Terry Williams]: We're not.

[Senator Anne Watson]: No, not this one. That goes with a different bill.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson]: It's okay. Not to worry.

[Senator John Morley III]: We'll get you to the

[Senator Anne Watson]: We'll get you You had to come. I'm gonna I'm gonna carry on. So as of right now, we don't know what those dependencies are. We know quite a bit about electricity costs. Those are costs that are highly transparent, but for most sectors and geographic areas of Vermont, we only have estimates derived from national data about our heating and transportation fuel use. This is particularly unfortunate because the transportation and thermal sectors combined represent approximately 72% of Vermont's climate pollution, far surpassing our electricity sector. A good data sources are more important than ever as the EPA rolls back data collection that Vermont relies on for the state's own greenhouse gas measures. So speaking of data, 72% of all money spent on fossil fuels leaves the state whereas alternatives to those alternatives to fossil fuels, those stats are flipped. You can care if if you care about long term financial sustainability, this bill is for you. I wouldn't I I would venture I'm sorry. I would even venture to describe this bill as fiscally conservative. This bill is what financial responsibility looks like because we need to understand where the leaks are in our economy. If Vermont is ever be able to supply for its own needs in terms of heating and transportation, we need to understand how we are dependent on foreign imported fuels now. As we discussed earlier in this session, h nine forty, a bill that has already passed and already been signed, municipalities have an energy chapter in their municipal plans and if they want what's called substantial deference or the ability to have more energy planning in their town, they must have an enhanced energy plan. We also require regional planning commissions to do this work. I bring this up because in those energy chapters, we ask municipalities and regions to we require regional planning commissions to set energy goals. And for the most part, municipalities and regions have no way of knowing how much progress they are making towards those goals. We heard from two planners and they described the data they currently have as quote estimates, assumptions, educated guesses, and aggregated modeled data for the heating sector in particular. They do have good electric data, but they lack good data where the lion's share of Vermont's energy costs come from, transportation and heating. As a former mayor, I remember being very frustrated by the lack of data to see our policies or incentives to see if they were making a difference. It's worth noting that we do have some good data in VGS territory, Vermont Gas Systems. We heard from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, which is largely served by VGS about this. Because they do supply data to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, CCRPC has been able to measure fuel usage by location and therefore have been able to measure the effectiveness of their programs. Not only is this bill about fiscal responsibility, it's also about government accountabilities. We often talk about the need to evaluate the effectiveness of our policies and this data collection will enable accurate reporting on the effectiveness of programs to help Vermonters get off of climate polluting expensive imported fuels. So what does this bill do? This bill directs the secretary of ANR to adopt rules to collect data from suppliers of transportation and heating fuels about the types and volumes of fuels sold in different sectors by geographic area. You may be thinking to yourself, isn't this data already collected by the tax department or by the DMV? Turns out that that option has already been evaluated by the agency of natural resources but was ultimately determined to not be a viable option for a variety of reasons, mainly being that data from tax and the DMV is not specific enough and we understand that the tax department is rightfully protective of the data that they do have. One might ask how difficult it would be for fuel dealers to supply this data. Thankfully, what is asked for in this bill is designed to be data that fuel suppliers already have. They should know what they're selling, how much of it they're selling, the type or class of property they're selling it to, and roughly where they are delivering it. It is worth noting that this bill was supported by the administration as one of the top 10 recommendations from the most recent version of the climate action plan. They supported it as it came out of the house and particularly with the appropriation contingency language. And should this bill pass and not be sufficiently funded by the funded, the authority would still be given to the secretary, but the obligation to adopt rules by July 2027 evaporates. In light of today's skyrocketing energy costs in the transportation and heating fuel sectors, it is imperative for us to find ways to help struggling Vermonters reduce energy costs and the reliance on unstable, unpredictable fossil fuels. This data collection will help us towards that end. So we heard from a variety of witnesses, including the secretary, and members of the agency of natural resources, Northwest Regional Planning Commission, Vermont, Natural Resources Council, the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, the Two Rivers, Addison District Regional Planning Commission, and the vote out of committee was three to zero, and we ask for the support of the Senate. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: You did such a great job, senator. I'm gonna recognize you again for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. The senate appropriations committee did look at this bill, and, knowing that there were some money reserved, for this bill, had no amendments. Thank you. Oh, and that passed out of committee, I believe, four three zero. Actually, I should check on that. I think that's what was. The

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: question is, we're gonna take a brief recess to finish printing an amendment. Will senate please come to order?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: You're not going. The

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter of the appropriations section of

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Kernanville? The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. Lacking insight into, what the appropriation was, which was mentioned during the floor report. I'm curious if the reporter could could at least provide to the body what that cost the current estimated cost to the treasury is in the in the current fiscal year's budget.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciate that question. This is why I prefer to write out my answers and did not write that one out. So thank you for the opportunity. So the administration was asking for 500,000 to to make this happen, and this in the appropriations I'm sorry. In the budget, we had flagged 300,000 to make this happen.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: I thank the reporter and thank you, mister president. Just wanted to be able to articulate and understand the the cost. Thanks.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator John Benson]: May I interrogate the a presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The reporters interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator John Benson]: How do the fuel dealers view this bill?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. So I'm gonna answer that in a couple of ways. One is that when the recommendations were put together as a part of the climate action plan, they do, there's there's a representative it's it's the same it's the same person who, was on the climate action council who, was who also testified in committee with us, representing the fuel dealers. And so in the climate action or yeah. In the in the climate council, he was the sole no vote on this provision. And in committee, in his testimony, he was also, not favorable.

[Senator John Benson]: Mister president, why was that?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, for that question. I would I could recreate his, objections at this moment, but would prefer to get back to you on third reading on that so that I am ensuring that I am not mischaracterizing that.

[Senator John Benson]: I think the presenter I have one more question if I could Mr. President.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: You're right.

[Senator John Benson]: Can the state guarantee that the electrical grid will handle an increase in power for electric cars if we all of a sudden decide to switch directly to that? President.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you Mr. President for that question and that it's a very interesting question and one that I've spent some time thinking about. It actually came up in conversation in relation to another bill, specifically S-seven 27, because that also has to deal with the grid. And it sounds like at present, Vermont does have what we would call headroom in our grid capacity. Now I don't have data as to whether or not if everybody switched to EVs tomorrow, if how that headroom would shrink, but apparently as of now, excuse me, we do have, some, headroom in our grid capacity.

[Senator John Benson]: I thank the presenter. Mr. President, speaking with linemen throughout the state they would disagree with that statement that Vermont is ready to do such a thing. Also I believe that asking for all this information while the intention is good I don't believe it's gonna help an outcome, for the money spent to find the information. I think, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna flag that this bill is strictly about data collection, and does not, while it may inform future policies, it is otherwise not directly related to electric vehicles. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, president. As many some folks in this chamber were here when the Cleveland State happened And the way that did happen, it was turned into a study under immense pressure from everyone in the state that didn't want anything to do with it. And one of those things would be, it was supposed to be studied, and I think we spent 5 to $7,000,000 studying it. And then it was supposed to come back for a vote into this chamber, and which never did. We've tried several times to get it off the wall, but what what is it? This is the clean heat standard times two. I want Vermonters to really understand what it is. We already know that because of our transportation sector is suffering from tax collections on fuel. We already know that fuel is going down. Fuel use is going down as far as for automobiles. We also know that 80% of our monitors have to heat their homes with heating fuels that are to be collected in this. So we know all the data that what it is. This puts it on due burden on folks that have to go around and spend all kinds of extra dollars to put information out that we already know. It's almost like asking question on the senate floor that you already know the answer to. So it really has no bearing in it as far as moving forward. I'm gonna ask mister president that we do a roll call on this one right here. Think Vermonters really are interested in knowing what we're wasting our time on when there are so many other important issues going on in the state other than asking businesses within our state to do unneeded collected data that we already have the answers to. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator John Morley III]: Thank you, mister president. I I find it interesting that we are trying to collect more data, trying to get more information, and about something in actuality we do not know. I I have said this, there was a clove here in the Western New York area called Sci Sims. And he also said, an educated consumer is our best customer. We're not only educating this body, but we're educating our constituents. They want to know what this is. Now you may bring up the clean heat standard again. May bring up this trope again. But in actuality, what we're trying to do is find out what we should do going forward, and I think it is money well spent. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. So I just want everybody to know that I was one of the two votes no on this bill, the audit committee. And I also want them to know that this data is already reported by two viewers to tax the tax department. And what what we recommended was that one report be done and be shared with the tax department from ANR, and they brought up some excuse like proprietary information, but this data is already available. It's already reported to the state. And I think this is a duplication of effort, and that's why I voted no. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Data reported to the tax department is kept confidential. The trust in amongst the people in the tax department that they won't be releasing their tax data, which is how this is reported. It's tax per gallon, I believe. So the tax department really is not a viable source of information.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I I would check with the administration over the weekend before third reading, but I believe the governor has been clear he does not support this bill, and he has promised to veto it, but I will I will get clarification on that. I think a government that wants to know what fuels Vermonters use, where those Vermonters use those fuels, and when they use those fuels is a government that wants to tell them what fuels they will use, when they will use those fuels, and where they

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: will What is your point of order, senator from Washington?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Is there a rule regarding implications of what the governor would and would not sign or veto?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, I find your point of order not well taken in section one eleven number one. It is unparliamentary to and inconsistent with the independence of the legislative body to refer to the name or office of the executive in order to influence the vote. So though your point of order is not well taken, I would also advise the, senator from Caledonia to be more careful in your comments.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank the president for the clarification.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Caledonia, you have the floor.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Mister president, I'll just back up a few sentences. A government that wants to know how Vermonter what Vermonters use for fuel, when those Vermonters use that fuel, and where they use that fuel is a government that wants to tell them what fuels they will use, when they will use those fuels, and where they will use those fuels. This is a another attempt to just get the ball rolling towards a carbon tax. And so I'll be voting no on this amendment. Vermonters are very educated. They use fuels to heat their homes in a very cold climate and to move their cars around in a very large state, and they do that in the most cost effective and environment environment environmentally sensitive way that they can, and they don't need people in this room or in this building to tell them how to do that. They know what the technology is out there. They know what the affordability of tech affordability of that technology is, and I think we should trust them a heck of a lot more than we should trust Montpelier. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: I'll be voting yes because I think this actually does show that the government cares about what things cost for the Vermonters. I think this that this bill shows that government cares about how we keep our planet sustainable with the threats of climate change and global warming. I think this is a terrific bill that says, yes. Government cares about the people of the state of Vermont, what things cost, how affordable it is, and what's happening to their environment, which is, after all, most of our economy is based on our economy still on our environment still being sustainable, still having snow, still having tourists come, still having agriculture, still having trees to to protect and to harvest. I am sorry. I think this is such a yes, Bill. We need more because we need to protect Vermonters pocketbooks, and we need to protect Vermont's economy. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I think anyone reading the language the plain language of this bill understands that it is purely data collection. What is done with that data will be in another biennium, but I did want to speak to the senator from Caledonia's suggestion that a government that wants to know this data means to use it in some sort of, nefarious controlling way. When I think about, fuel prices today, the consumer is trapped, but they are not trapped by the Vermont state government. They are trapped by the federal government who has, for reasons of their own, gone to war with Iran and closed the Strait Of Hormuz. We have seen gas and fuel prices and fertilizer, I would add for the farmers out there listening. We have seen those fuel prices skyrocket. Every byproduct of those fuels skyrocket because of the policies of the White House. Throw in tariffs, and you have that double. So what I would say is that we are not trapping Vermonters. We are recognizing that they are trapped by the fossil fuel industry and by an administration that is acting in conjunction with it at every turn. So what this data will allow us to do is develop options for Vermonters as we have done for the last thirty or forty years. So things like heat pumps, things like fuel pellets, all of those technologies are flourishing in our state because we've done data collection like this. So I would simply say if anybody believes that collecting data is going to somehow trap or limit Vermonters choices, the opposite is true. We are trying to find a way out of the fossil fuel trap that the president of The United States has most recently, slammed shut. Thank you,

[Senator John Benson]: mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. I, staff out of national politics as much as I can. I really think that my, task is to do always what's best for Vermont, controlled by Vermonters. But I do find it odd that when gas prices were higher than what they are right now, that there wasn't really much of an uproar, from anybody in this body caused by another president that I don't even know what that was caused by, but fuel prices were much higher even then than they are right now. So, but we didn't hear much of that. So I just, I find that a little bit odd that, now it's, we're all we're all concerned about that, which we all should be concerned about it, but we should have been concerned about it another time as well. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Not breaking protocol, but speaking after the pro tem did. Okay. Great. Thank you, mister president. I I rise not to influence or try to change any votes. I think we're all gonna vote how we're gonna vote on this, but I'm gonna rise just to say why I'm gonna support this and why I do support this. You can't improve what you don't measure, and what you measure matters. And we measure and track lots of things. When you want to, decrease traffic congestion, you throw a traffic count thing out and see how many cars go through. When you wanna manage roads and, be able to assess who's using our roadways, we issue license plates. We do we've watched food systems and supply chains. We need to know, energy, where energy is being used because energy is finite, and we have energy crises on the horizon that we it'll inform future decisions about how much energy we're using in which different sectors. I'm jingling my keys in this. My colleague says I shouldn't do

[Senator John Morley III]: that while

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: I talk. Alright. So all I'm gonna say is I don't think this bill is the end of the world. I hope the governor doesn't veto it. I'm trying to influence you with that statement, but I just think it's an alright bill. It's not gonna do much other than inform future legislatures years out. If in fact fuel prices continue to skyrocket, you'll have a better idea of how that will hurt different areas, different ZIP codes, different parts of Vermont, how we can support them better. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. You know, one thing that my husband likes to do is to put a rain gauge out and collect see how much has fallen, how it's gonna affect the garden, and what what's coming next with the weather. And I see this bill as an opportunity to measure every drop. You know, we're a small state, and we're gonna look at how many greenhouse gases we have. But every drop of of rain is part of the flood, and this city understands floods. And we all should understand floods. We should understand the greenhouse gas flood that we're within right now. In '20 I think it was '26 or '27, we established greenhouse gas, goals, reduction goals. We had three weeks of, education and understanding in Room 11 where folks came in who were experts to talk about the effect of every drop of greenhouse gas that's coming into Vermont, whether it's ours or whether it's others. But ours is something we can look at, and we can collect data, understand the effect on the weather, on the reduction of maple productivity. Right now, we're at the place where we had anticipated high agricultural and maple, production productivity. So we're in a good time right now. But if this continues and we go down the path of continued greenhouse gas emissions, we're gonna see the downturn. That won't be a happy time for any of us because we love maple syrup. But we don't like Lyme disease. We've seen that progression. Right? We don't like that. There are other things that are concerning to us. But this is just an opportunity to collect data about the greenhouse gases that we have coming in our state from what we utilize. And, you know, the challenges of of of global climate change offer opportunity. And every there are folks here who have mentioned those opportunities, whether it's the electric airplane, whether it's the heat pump, all of those things that we have seen developed over the past twenty five years. It's absolutely outstanding. And they're being deployed, distributed, and sold through the state, opportunities for people for economic development. So, mister mister president, this is a little bill. It's just collecting data, but it's important data to inform us about next steps. And we will have this debate over and over and over again as those policies go forward. That's a good thing. What's best for us? What's best for fuel dealers? What's best for the plumber? What's best for the person who fixes fixes our heat? So, mister president, I would say, let's support this. Let's have it go forward, and let's use the data to the best way possible for Vermonters. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. The river is high this morning. Are

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: you ready for the question? Question is, shall the bill be read a third time? The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Beck? Senator Cumming? Yes. Senator Julie? Yes. Senator Hardy? Yes. Senator Harrison?

[Senator John Morley III]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan? Nay. Senator Ingle? No. Senator Bongartz? Senator Westman?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 12. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h seven forty. We have on the calendar for action h five seventy eight, which was passed by the house on 05/12/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page thirty one ninety nine of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on judiciary. With further proposal of amendment as found in your calendar on page thirty two fifteen affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committees on judiciary and finance. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk]: H five seventy eight, an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Vyhovsky, for the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, mister president. This bill proposes to make several changes to the laws related to animal cruelty offenses. We're going to go on a uncomfortable journey at times with this bill. The beginning portion of the bill deals with the laws around bestiality, and the latter half halfton of the bill deals with the laws around due process. Under our current law, the crime of cruelty to an animal can be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the nature of the conduct. Misdemeanor animal cruelty is typically punishable by up to one year in prison for a first offense and up to two years in prison for a second or subsequent offense. While felony animal cruelty is typically punishable by up to five years in prison for a first offense and up to ten years in prison for a second or subsequent offense. The animal cruelty statutes specify which types of conduct constitutes misdemeanors and felonies, and H578 expands the types of conduct in each of those lists. Currently, sexual conduct with an animal is prohibited as a misdemeanor offense. I personally feel it should be a felony, but we may have to deal with that next year. Current in current law, any act between a person or animal that involves contact between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the person and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the animal is prohibited. It is also prohibited without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose to insert objects or parts of a person's body into the vagina or anal opening of an animal. What we have added is a further definition that without bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purposes, a person touching or fondling the sex organ or anus of an animal, either directly or through clothing, shall also be prohibited. And without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose, any intentional transfer or transmission of semen by a person onto any part of an animal shall also be prohibited. This all resides within the misdemeanor animal cruelty section. Additionally, we are adding that knowingly possessing, filming, or distributing obscene visual images of sexual conduct with animals shall be prohibited. That possessing, owning, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal if the person is prohibited from doing so by a court order shall be prohibited. And knowingly refusing to comply with court orders to permit periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer. The bill also defined what working with an animal means. It means working or volunteering in any capacity, including as an independent contractor, that requires the person to be in contact with an animal. And this will include commercial boarding or training, breeding services, working within a veterinary hospital or clinic, working within an animal welfare society or any nonprofit organization that is incorporated for the purpose of providing for or promoting the welfare protection and humane treatment of animals. Section three expands the list of felony animal cruelty to animals to include all of the same offenses we just discussed, but it shall be a felony if they include a minor child. In addition to the criminal penalties for animal cruelty offenses, current law permits the sentencing court to impose other sanctions on a person convicted of animal cruelty, And Section four of the bill expands those sanctions and makes several of them mandatory rather than discretionary. And some of those sanctions may be the prohibition on having animals for a period of time. Current law does permit the court to order that the defendant forfeit any rights to the animal subjected to the cruelty and any other animal owned, possessed or in the custody of the defendant. Subdivision A additionally permits forfeiture of animals residing or domiciled with the defendant. The language does preserve the existing exception for livestock or poultry so that a person such as a farmer would not have to forfeit their livestock or poultry unless the person was convicted of abusing the livestock or poultry. Current law also permits the court to order the defendant to forfeit any future right to own, possess, or care for any animal for a period that the court deems appropriate. Subdivision C adds the court's authority to order the defendant to forfeit any future right to reside with, have custody of, or work with an animal. And subdivision C also establishes a five year maximum of future prohibition for misdemeanor offenses and a ten year maximum for felony offenses. Subdivision D and E make minor language changes to the provisions permitting the court to require the defendant to complete animal cruelty prevention education programs, undergo psychiatric, psychological or mental health treatment, and permit periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer or the director of animal welfare to inspect animals in the custody of the defendant. In some instances, the court may allow for people to continue to own their animals but with certain conditions and this allows for humane officers or the director of animal welfare to ensure that those conditions are being followed. The forfeiture of the so under subdivision two, the forfeiture of the animal that was subject to the cruelty and the future rights to the to own any other animal is made mandatory rather than discretionary for second or subsequent animal cruelty convictions. If the court does issue an order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal subdivision little d permits the person to later file a petition asking the court to vacate that order and permit the person to have contact with animals again. The court will grant the petition if it finds the interests of justice are no longer served by prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, residing with, or having custody of animals. Section five expedites and better funds the process that exists in current law to permit forfeiture of an animal subject to cruelty. This is a civil process. We are now transitioning into the due process portion of this bill. It is not a criminal process and it can occur whether or not the defendant is also charged with an animal, a criminal animal cruelty offense. Under current law, a humane officer may obtain a warrant to seize an animal if the officer has probable cause to believe the animal is being subjected to cruelty. The officer may seize the animal without a warrant if the the humane officer witnesses a situation in which the animals life is in jeopardy and immediate action is necessary to protect the animals health or safety. A court proceeding may then be initiated for permanent forfeiture of the animal, but current law provides no time limit in which to initiate those proceedings. We had lengthy discussion with the Director of Animal Welfare about the difference when we're dealing with forfeiture of a living feeling thing as opposed to forfeiture of a possession that is inanimate. We also had lengthy discussion with the Director of Animal Welfare about the lack of resources that are in Vermont to house animals when they need to be forfeited and how that creates an incredible cost when that process drags on for months and months. So not only is there a detrimental effect to the animal, I will use dogs. Dogs are very social animals and they can decompensate rapidly when they are kept in a cage away from social interactions, which is part of why it is really important that we make sure that that process moves rapidly as rapidly as possible while still affording the defendant due process. As a court may extend this process for good cause but as it is currently the person must or what we are proposing to do in this bill is also require that the person post a security in the amount needed for food and necessary veterinary care for an initial forty day period, with an additional amount for the cost of care due every thirty days thereafter until the owner relinquishes the animal or the court decides on the forfeiture issue. And again, this is in part to help with the exponential cost of caring for these animals who sometimes need quite significant care. Recently in Eden there were 55 Huskies that were seized and ended up having to be placed out of state because of the lack of resources and the lack of ability to navigate this system and this forfeiture process. So the amount of the security will be established by rule, adopted by the Director of Animal Welfare, and will be collected by the court who will then transfer it to the Animal Welfare Fund for distribution to the custodial care organizations that are caring for those animals. If the state establishes at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal was subjected to the cruelty, the court must order the immediate forfeiture of the animal and any offspring of the animal that were born while the animal was in custody. The security posted is applied to the actual cost incurred by the custodial caregiver in caring for the and keeping animal through the date of forfeiture, and any excess will be returned to the person who posted the security. If the security is insufficient to cover the costs of care, the defendant will be liable to the custodial caregiver for the difference, and existing law authorizes the restitution unit to collect those funds. There is, however, included in here the ability to seek a waiver if the defendant is unable for financial reasons to provide that security. So the court must order the animal returned to the person who petitioned for the hearing if the court finds the petitioner is not the defendant in a cruelty case involving that animal did not participate or consent to the alleged cruel treatment of the animal, did not know that the defendant was likely to treat the animal cruel cruelly and can provide adequate care to the animal once it is returned. If the state does not carry its burden of establishing that the animal was subjected to cruelty, the court must return the animal to the petitioner provided that the person remains liable for the cost of care during the period of impoundment. Payment of these costs is not required if the court finds that there is no reasonable basis for the seizure of the animals. Under subsection little g, the forfeiture order may be appealed to the Supreme Court if a notice is filed within seven days after the order is issued and the appellant posts the security. The procedures for posting and reimbursing are the same as at trial. Subsection little J authorizes the court to reduce or waive the security on the basis of financial hardship and subsection little K provides immunity to humane officers, animal shelters, rescue organizations for actions taken in good faith relying on the forfeiture law. Immunity is not provided for gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Subsection little l makes clear that the forfeiture proceeding does not limit any other legal remedies that may exist. Subsection six requires the Division of Animal Welfare to adopt the rules for the receipt management and distribution of security payments, including the amount of the security required and the repayment schedules. Subsection seven authorizes the Animal Welfare Fund to accept and hold security payments. It also authorizes the director of the Animal Welfare Fund to make distributions and reimbursements from the fund. Section eight sets into session law the amount of the security until the Director of Animal Welfare can adopt the permanent rules for the amount and payment schedule of that security and subsection nine provides that the bill shall take effect on passage. We heard a lot of very challenging and upsetting testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Certainly difficult to think about animals who are innocent and cannot consent being harmed in the ways that are described in the bill. And the bill I think is a critically important update to the laws protecting animals as I said I think there's more work to be done in making the type of behavior where we're discussing a felony no matter who is involved, but I think this is an important step forward. Your Senate Committee on Judiciary heard from Legislative Counsel at the Office of Legislative Counsel, the Programs and Operations Co Executive Director at the Central Vermont Humane Society, and the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, as well as the Director of the Department of Animal Welfare, which is a fairly newly set up branch of the Department of Public Safety that I am happy to have been working with to really look at a larger, broader plan for how we protect and keep animals safe. Vermont is sadly a bit behind in these procedures and creating these laws and rules around protecting animals. Many states are moving forward in sort of bigger ways, but I believe that with our new Director of Animal Welfare, we will catch up and we will keep safe our animals. Your vote in the Senate committee on judiciary was five zero zero, and we ask for the body's support.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: I recognize the senator from Chittenden North, senator Mattos, the report of the committee on finance.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Senators can find the amendment, from senate finance on page thirty two fifteen of today's calendar.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: So I do I do sit on

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: the judiciary committee in the morning and some finance committee in the afternoon. And we deal with fees in finance. Judiciary, it's called a security. Tried to slip it past, didn't work out. In our afternoon committee in finance, hold those fees near and dear to our heart. So in an effort to bring those fees back to our committee, we have four instances of amendments striking out these these securities being put into rule, and we're gonna move it back to a report that will be done by 12/01/2026 and brought back to the judiciary and the ways and means committee in the house and then also the finance and judiciary committee in the senate. And that is in an effort to have the legislature take another look at those those securities that are gonna be proposed and also payment schedules for those securities. We took a lot of testimony in judiciary about ability to pay those securities. So in an effort to learn more about how that'll work in the future, we're

[Senator Terry Williams]: looking for a

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: report back by December to set those securities up. And on a vote of seven zero zero, the senate finance committee asks for your support. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. Senate appropriations did take a look at this bill and had no problems with it. I, in fact, found the effects on the state's finances de minimis and so recommend passage on a vote of five zero two. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Senator from Orleans.

[Senator John Morley III]: Yes. I have a question for the presenter of the bill.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter of the

[Senator John Morley III]: What's this on the

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter of the bill from judiciary?

[Senator John Morley III]: Yeah. No. Yes.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Is interrogated.

[Senator John Morley III]: Thank you. I'm to read you second.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Is the question currently the underlying bill or the amendment from the committee on finance?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question currently is the finance committee amendment. K.

[Senator John Morley III]: Don't have a question for the finance committee. Thank you, Scott. The

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, you've amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary as recommended by the committee on finance. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank the committee for the work that they did. I actually I had a bill s one eighty two that's been on the judiciary committee wall since the beginning of the biennium. And I had a constituent from Rutland who was executive director of the Rutland, Humane Society came to me with this. It's basically the same bill. It's h five seventy eight s one eighty two. And we actually I actually work with the with the sponsor from the house. I my bill, I appreciate the committee for continuing that work and fine portions of the bill relating to rule making authority and payment schedule. There's also provisions contained in s one eighty two that were not fully incorporated into h five seventy eight, including additional liability protections, administrative structure, and certain implementation provisions that I believe still warrant considerate consideration in the future, and they will be brought in a form of a bill in the next biennium. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator John Morley III]: Senator from Orleans. Mister president, I still have so much to learn, but I'm trying.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: May

[Senator John Morley III]: I inquire a reporter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator John Morley III]: Mister president, I was just thinking because this happened a while ago up home, and I hope it falls under section two or section three of this bill, and I really, like a lot of parts of this bill. If an individual is walking their dog down the road on a leaf and another animal another dog came out and attacked that dog. And then that individual, perhaps carrying a firearm, perhaps not carrying a firearm, trying to protect his animal, his his pet, his dog. Couldn't get that dog off from his dog. Shoots that dog. How is that handled from a legal perspective through this bill?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, mister president. I am not an attorney. My understanding is that this bill really would not touch that at all. There is some underlying law around cruelty to animals that does include something. It would be very fact specific. Quote the chair of the committee, it depends. Under current law, if you intentionally kill, attempt to kill an animal belonging to another person without first obtaining their legal authority, that would be considered cruelty to an animal. However, what you're describing is not that you went onto their property and killed that animal. What you're describing is a very fact specific pattern, that this this bill really doesn't deal with. But if you'd like a a more in-depth answer about how that would be dealt within the broader scope, I'm happy to take a brief recess and cut and connect with legislative council.

[Senator John Morley III]: That's fine, mister president. I can talk with the presenter offline. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the questions? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Anne Watson]: May I inquire the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The presenters interrogated.

[Senator John Morley III]: Thank you

[Senator John Benson]: Mr. President. In these crazy times what happens if the individual identifies as an animal having intercourse with an animal how is the courts going to handle that? A follow-up question to that being that we voted through prop four and if it does make it through the state and I have a gender identity that I identify as a dog and had sex with my dog is this law

[Senator Terry Williams]: gonna affect me?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, mister president. The, bill that we are putting forward in the current law is quite clear that any act between a person and an animal that involves contact with the mouth sex organ or anus of the person and the mouth sex organ or anus of the animal without a bonafide veterinary purpose will be a crime.

[Senator John Benson]: Sorry, Mr. President, that does not answer the question. If I identify as that animal, will this be able to it says a person. I'm not a person. I'm identifying as this animal I'm having intercourse with.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Again, law is quite clear that that type of behavior between a person and an animal is not legal in in either in current law or as is proposed with this law. If you're asking questions about a potential future supreme court ruling on proposition four, I cannot speak for the supreme court.

[Senator John Benson]: Sorry, mister president. Not even proposition four. As in the court of lies, it stands now, we are identifying genders at whatever gender we decide we want to be. And I think I like this, bill. I'm gonna vote for this bill, but I wanna make this chamber aware of what's coming. Thank you,

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on judiciary as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of page five seventy eight. We have on the calendar for action h seven twenty seven, which was passed by the house on 05/12/2026, was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears on page thirty two sixteen of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Effect in the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk]: H seven twenty seven, an act relating to sustainable data center deployment.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Washington District for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I'm just gonna take a second to, like, shake out the from the previous conversation. Okay. So here we go, data centers. Thank you, mister president. When I was running for reelection back in 2024 for this biennium, I could not have guessed that I'd be here giving a floor report on data centers, but here we are. A lot has shifted in the last two years and this is an important emerging and extremely profitable industry and Vermont needs to be ready for it. Many of the data center companies in existence today are valued in the trillions of dollars. These are some of the wealth wealthiest companies in the history of companies, but their facilities have been a source of a lot of trouble for their hosting communities on a number of different fronts. Briefly, those includes risks to the grid, financial risks to electric companies, increased cost to electric ratepayers, increased climate pollution, increased water pollution, etcetera. These are some of the downsides, that are addressed in this bill. I know some of you might prefer a moratorium. This is not a moratorium. This bill is in the spirit of the saying, good fences make good neighbors, and this bill is intended to be that fence. And here is the upshot. It is possible that if well regulated, data centers could actually benefit, be a benefit to their surrounding community. For example, we've heard in testimony that they have the potential of lowering electric rates by up to 5%. This is a simple matter of division where if you're using a higher percentage of your load capacity, you can spread out your costs over a larger load. Thus potentially reducing costs for regular rate payers, but of course there's a lot to be considered in thinking about the proper regulation of data centers. This bill came out of our committee five zero zero and it's not the sort of the longest bill ever, but it has some discrete parts. And so we are going to, as a Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, going to be taking pieces of the reporting of this bill. So I'm gonna start us by walking through the bill to see how we are proposing to address cost, pollution, and oversight. So I'm gonna jump to the definition section and I I wanna highlight the the definition of a data center that it means a facility that uses or is able to use 20 megawatts of power, and we do have the handout. That's fabulous. So I wanted to put in perspective how much 20 megawatts is because that just that number alone may be hard to to visualize or put into context. So we do have a handout which shows the relative electricity consumption for some of these data centers relative to some Vermont relevant metrics. So I'm going to turn to the handout for a minute here. This came to us from VPERG. You can see down on the left is the proposed threshold of the 20 megawatt data center. That is roughly a third of the size that we anticipate will be the projected average per data center in 2028, so up and coming. That is, just what our proposed threshold is is, even just about a fourth of of what is currently Vermont's second largest distribution utility, Vermont Electric Co op. So you can see that the average that's projected in 2028 is almost on a par with Vermont's second largest distribution utility. That is a substantial amount of energy. But then moving up from there, you can see, Cayuga data center that's proposed in New York, is, 2,800, gigawatt hours. That is that is substantially more than Vermont Electric Co op. And then you can see that there's another that's a 2,000 megawatt data center proposed in Louisiana all the way to the right. So you can I just wanted you to get a feel for the scale of the volume of electricity that we are talking about, that this is absolutely gargantuan? Okay. I'm gonna find my place back here. So I also want to highlight that under the term facility, we wanted to make sure that we captured the the potential expansion of any facility should they expand beyond the 20 megawatt threshold. And even if there are multiple sites that are basically owned or operated by the same entity such that they operated as a single integrated operation using shared infrastructure and unified protocols, but that would count as a single facility. So, an existing facility can't, just have multiple small, facilities that are operating together and not trigger the 20 megawatt threshold. So at this point, I am going to yield to the senator from the senior senator from Addison to tell us about the large load service equity contract portion of the bill.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Washington yields to the senior senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. I apologize because I didn't know that was my assigned part of the bill. Oh. Would you like a brief So maybe I can yield back to the senator

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: from Addison yields to the senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Can yield to me on

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: the section e one, which is what I thought was

[Senator Anne Watson]: my section. Could I request a thirty second recess?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson]: That would take a recess. Okay.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to order?

[Senator John Benson]: I don't know for what he will say.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president, and my apologies. Thank you to the senate for a little bit of extra time there. I really appreciate it. So the large load service equity contract is provision that is intended to protect particularly rate payers from financial exposure due to one of these data centers coming into being built in Vermont and coming into existence. And so there's a number of provisions that are going to be required to be approved by the Public Utility Commission before they can really get going. So you can see in two A four B two that it's we're it's to ensure that other rate payer classes are insulated from all costs associated basically with the data center. I just want to highlight because we had a question in a previous bill about transmission costs or the headroom as we were talking that it does call out that it needs to protect people from any potential increase related to transmission. And this was actually a point that we talked about quite a bit in committee because there are certain places in Vermont that can handle the kind of load that is envisioned in this bill, but it's not everywhere. All places in Vermont could not handle a data center of this size so that provision is important. One of the other things that we heard about was a complaint in committee was that there are times when these data centers are promising that they'll come online and then they don't. That is after, or they go out of business, relatively early. And though there have been investments made to accommodate them, if they go out of business, then, then that turns out to leave some stranded costs with the distribution utility and thus also with ratepayers. And so part of to protect against that, have a couple provisions in here. One is to have that the contract agreement with the Public Utility Commission has to specify that the contract with the data center must be for at least ten years and that there would be periodic check ins with the Department of Public Service to oversee that, to make sure that they are holding up their end of all of the provisions in the agreement. Then that they're also obligated to pay a percentage of their projected electricity use for the duration of the contract, again, to protect against them going out of business and then leaving the distribution utility with some stranded costs and infrastructure. So And that is also called out specifically in this bill. Section seven here was reconfigured in our version as opposed to as it came over from the other body. And this is particularly because we had a lot of the, our committee had a lot of thoughts on what's called demand side management, which I'll tell you more about later. They just had the one provision for a demand side management and, particular section is built out in our construct of this bill. So more about that a little bit later. And there's other concerns about what happens during grid emergencies. One of the things that is difficult when you have a load that is of this scale is that you can end up with, if we know that the grid is going to have a high usage day and for whatever reason, the supply is not going to be able to meet the demand. Sometimes the distribution utility will call up certain consumers and say, can you curtail your consumption for this amount of time? And so we had a lot of discussion about sub subdivision or subsection eight there that this agreement has to include or has to address a curtailment procedures should there be a grid emergency. We have also included that they they're subject to any regular taxes and fees that any other consumer ought to be subject to. And then ultimately the Public Utility Commission has to find that approving this would be in the general good of the state. And then there are criteria to define how do we know if it is in the interest or in the general good of the state and that includes that it has to not adversely affect the stability, efficiency and reliability, resiliency of the electric grid itself, that it has to be an economic benefit to its residents and has to be consistent with the principles of the distribution utilities approved lease cost integration plan. So it's not violating that. Moving on from there. So all of that has to be provided in writing and so that this is a part of our effort to have increased transparency and oversight. So we want that all to be to the extent that is reasonable, visible to the public. And again, there's this portion here about periodic reviews every two years. So I think, phew, okay, that makes us, that gets us through the large load service contract and I'm gonna move back to what I had otherwise originally prepared. And so that is jumping into the demand side management. So Senate Natural Resource and Energy Committee dug into the possibilities for managing demand for electricity. We realized that there are multiple aspects that we wanted to add to the bill as it came over from the other body. And so the demand side management section is really an expansion of what they had and flushes it out in what I think of as terms that are coherent and integrated. So as outlined in the purpose section, the goal of the following provisions is to minimize peak demand, which is a main driver of costs for regular electric rate payers, enhance grid stability, efficiency, reliability, and resilience. So how do we do that? So first the PUC reviews whether the site is suitable for such a facility. This is important as we consider the grid, what the grid can handle at that location. And the site has to be designed in such a way as to maximize the deployment of on-site renewable energy. It must meet building energy standards and it must implement waste heat recovery to be used elsewhere. In terms of where this electricity for this plant comes from, the first priority is that it must maximize as renewable energy. It must maximize as much renewable energy as possible being generated on-site. The remainder of the electricity is the responsibility of their electric utility as they would supply electricity for any other customer. And we heard in testimony that some on-site generation is just large diesel burning jet engines that are running 20 fourseven and we are trying to minimize the amount of climate pollution that comes about as a result of this data center. So we addressed that in a couple of different ways. So first they're allowed to have a combustion based backup generation, but it must only be used in emergency situations involving power failures and interruptions. Otherwise they must prioritize the use of battery storage and on-site renewable energy generation. So this is, I'm going to jump to virtual power plants. So this leads me to speaking about what's called a virtual power plant in the bill. This may be a new term for some. The virtual power plant is mainly a large set of batteries that are coordinated through software to function like a traditional power plant. So data centers will be required to participate in a virtual power plant if they, if there's one set up by the electric company. And if they don't have one, then they are to set up one, that is self managed, as a, as a virtual power plant. So lastly, because of the significant demands, a data center has on the electric system, it is inevitable that there will be more carbon pollution, in general as a result of the new data center. And so that led us to creating something, called the energy transformation payment for which I will be able to the senior senator of Addison.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Washington yields to the senior senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you to the chair of the committees and the senator from Washington. So the energy transformation payment is a concept that is common for large scale electric or other power type contracts in the state. And this is requires the data center to annually make an energy transformation payment, and this payment is from the data center to the electric company. So not to the State, it's to the electric company. And the payment reflects a proportional contribution to State initiatives to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and to help fund, pay help the electric company meet its requirements under, the tier three, and renewable energy standards. And this is a common practice because a data center will use a lot of energy and electricity and therefore create a lot of fossil fuel emissions, and this is supposed to help offset that and help the electric company be able to meet its, meet its obligations under the renewable energy standard. So the payments go to a fund managed by the electric company and it's used to finance energy transformation projects to reduce customer reliance on fossil fuels. The amount of the payment is 60% of energy consumption for prior year multiplied by the alternative compliance rate under tier three of the renewable energy standards. There will be a finance committee report that talks more about this. The statutory rate is 6¢ per kilowatt hour adjusted for inflation by the PUC. It's now 7.3¢ per kilowatt hour, and payments are made in advance and reconciled the year after so that if there's more energy consumed or less energy consumed, it would be reconciled so that you can pay extra. And the funds are used to support projects also funded by the electric company and the company's credit is prorated accordingly. So this is a benefit to our electric companies if they are hosting a data center in their territory. I did get the memo on what parts we were supposed to but I clearly did not read that memo so I'm not sure who I'm supposed to oh the senator from Bennington. I will yield to the senator from Bennington. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Addison yields to the senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: Mr. President, I have a very small piece of this report, an important one, Because as we're this bill is really as as the chair noted about preparing Vermont for the eventuality of the data center seeking to locate here. Because if we were not prepared, we would be in major we could potentially be in major trouble on a number of fronts. But prepared, it's a different story. And so, one of the things that these, facilities do is they use a lot of water. So I'm gonna get to that in a second. But section two of the bill amends 10 VSA section six zero zero one, which is the act two fifty statute, by adding data centers to the definition of act two fifty, those things that are covered by act two fifty. And the significant thing that that section two does is it it leaves data centers covered even in tier one a areas where otherwise act two fifty would not, adhere. And so the theory, of course, here is that, you know, tier one a have have the regulatory apparatus to review for environmental impacts, but data centers are a special breed of development, very large and very new to the landscape and with a lot of environmental, concerns that, may overwhelm even a relatively sophisticated town. And so they may not have the towns to the the the capacity to review adequately. So the committee felt that wise to retain active jurisdiction or data centers even in tier one a, settings. And by the way, as the chair noted, we're talking for instance, not just about the water usage that I'll get to, but the noise, jet engines. I mean, think about, you know, your neighborhood and where these things are located. So active fifty clearly has a role to play here. Section three deals with a combination of water usage and PFAS. I'm gonna report on the water usage component of section three, and then I'll yield to the senator from Rutland, senator Williams for the PFAS component of section three. So there are fundamentally two types of water usage systems associated with data centers, open loop and closed loop. In lay terms, with an open loop system, water is sucked into the plant, does its job, and is then discharged on a continuing continuing basis. A closed loop system is closer to that which the name implies. Water stays in the system so much less is pulled from groundwater or surface water sources. A closed loop system does still lose some water, so and it still draws from ground or surface waters, but at a significantly lower rate than an open loop system. Both groundwater and surface water are precious commodities, and so we are not interested in having open loop systems in Vermont. We we want only closed loop systems. So section going down into into section, two sec section, defines a closed loop system loop system. I'm gonna skip over the subsections having to do with PFAS. Section b one requires that a data center described to the District Commission how the data center will cool the facility, and the answer is water, but nevertheless. And it requires a quote, and and section two b requires a closed loop system or, of course, alternative technology if it comes online and exists that uses no more water than a closed loop system would use. Section b three requires the data center to identify the source of water it proposes to use, groundwater, surface water, if surface water from where. And if groundwater, is the answer to that question, a withdrawal permit is required if, more than 5,700 gallons of water per day is planned for usage. That's about 40 gallons a minute and that's the standard, line of demarcation for larger projects in Vermont for for, water quality for review. If surface water surface water permit will be required, the rules will require that operations cease under drought conditions. So again, we have the we have the language that the chair referenced about what happens in power shortage conditions. This is about drought drought conditions. The same sort of parallel system to be able to close it down, shut shut it down, under drought conditions, which will, of course, then bring on why those jet engines were also worried about. We have to pay attention to. And all, section e one says all applicable quality and water resource protection permits will be required. And then section, e two a is rep sets the standard for gallons of surface water per day at which the agency would assess impacts such as impacts on aquatic biota water quality etcetera and that's at a 150 gallons of surface water per day. If a permit after the review by the agency is issued that permit well within the act two fifty process carry a rebuttable presumption. And then section e two c allows the agency by rule to reduce those triggers that I just referenced if the agency determines that that that level of trigger and for review should be lowered as these things get a

[Senator Terry Williams]: little bit as we get a little bit more used

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: to these things. So with that, my that's my very brief report, and I will now yield to the senator from Rutland.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Bennington yields to the senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. I'll try not to be redundant. We did we did overlap a little bit, but the legislation strongly favors the use of, closed loop system, which continuously recirculates water and significantly reduces withdrawal from groundwater, surface water, and municipal water supplies. But it's important to mention that even though in a closed loop system, there's gonna be some leakage, and they're gonna have to replenish it. So so it's important to note that many closed loop systems may also utilize and contain PFAS. Polyfluoroalkali and poly perfluoroalkali and polyfluoroalkali. There, I knew that he's gonna be happy with me. Substances, sometimes referred to as forever chemicals. And due to their persistence in the environment, potential risks to human health and water quality. All alternative cooling systems may also be approved, but only if the District Commission determines they are are comparable. This bill also, requires that centers, to disclose where cooling water will come from and where it will be discharged. So the bill also establishes PFAS monitoring requirements. Any data center discharging wastewater into surface waters, it must monitor the PFAS using US EPA approved testing method methodology. If Vermont adapts PFAS discharge standards, in the future, those facilities will be required to comply with them. If we if if no standard yet exists, the bill establishes a baseline safeguard by requiring a PFAS levels discharge may not exceed the PFAS levels present in the water where it was originally withdrawn. And finally, section three a, this directs that the Agency of Natural Resources must report back to the legislature with recommendations regarding future PFAS discharge standards for the data centers. In summary, these sections attempt to balance future technological development with protection of Vermont's groundwater, surface water, and environmental resources. And with that, I'll yield back to the senator from Caledonia.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland yields to the senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. Data centers are not forever. They will come, they will go, they will close for any variety of reasons. And so in this bill that we have directed that the Department of Public Safety will issue a report on data center decommissioning and that report will be due on December 15 year. The DPS in consultation with the agency of natural resources, the land use review board, and other stakeholders shall recommend a regulatory model for data center decommissioning. And that model shall protect and preserve the environment and the public health and welfare and include standards and procedures that address amongst other amongst others regulatory approval with clear definition of authority, oversight through site visits and inspections, a bond requirement, or other financial assurance. So data center is solely responsible for their decommissioning costs and not Vermonters. Guidelines for data sense sanitization and physical destruction of sensitive storage devices. Guidelines for environmental compliance, hazardous material handling. And any and it will it will, also provide in the report an appropriate timeline for a decommissioning and any other matters that are deemed appropriate by the commissioner. This bill, as, presented will take effect on passage, and I yield to the senator from Washington.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Caledonia yields to the senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. So we heard from a number of witnesses that included a former member of the Department of Energy and the Biden administration, Rutland Electric Co op, Green Mountain Power, Velco, VPERG, ANR, Department of Public Service, VNRC, Associated Industries of Vermont, Citizens Advisory Committee on Lake Champlain, and the Public Utility Commission. The vote of the committee again was five zero zero, and we ask for the of the senate.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Caledonia for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. As the senator from Addison went went through the the details of the pieces that your committee on finance looked at closely, and the our the committee after confirming the legislative council voted six one zero that the bill ought to pass.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex. Thank you, Perchlik. Can I

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: inquire of the presenter of the bill, please?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Washington as the presenter of the bill?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Well, mister president, one part of the bill has me concerned, and maybe maybe you didn't take testimony or maybe the committee didn't take testimony, mister president, on this portion of it, but it's about generation of energy amongst themselves. I I think about global foundries and maybe they're not in part of this bill because they're probably not considered a data center. But the restrictions in this bill as far as to generate powers, amongst yourself, would, in the committee's opinion, would, Global Foundries be, affected by this bill?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you for that question, mister president. And based on the conversations that we had, I don't they would not fall under this under this provision or any of this bill.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Okay. So it's only for data centers, Mr. President that that this bill would would represent?

[Senator Anne Watson]: That's accurate.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Mr. President, does it does the committee hear of any data centers that were thinking about moving to Vermont?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you for that question, mister president. We did hear testimony. We had we had written testimony from someone who was involved in the data center in in data center center industry. As we understand it, there may be some smaller data centers that would not trigger the threshold that is set out in this bill but otherwise we've not heard of any data centers that would be large enough to to trigger this bill. So it does seem, I would say from the committee's perspective, prudent to to set out the the fences as it were, the guidelines ahead of time before it becomes a question so that we are prepared for the moment should should they, want to come here.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I thank the presenter. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. It may come as some surprise that the US Navy Aegis destroyer is essentially a large floating data center, albeit with weapons, that uses a great deal of fuel. Utilizes the jet engines which the center from Bennington alluded to, although they're not noisy on the outside, they're only noisy when you get inside the box and protects them. I do have a question if I could for the chair of the Natural Resources Committee.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The senator is interrogated.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. Just a couple of questions because I really wanna get my head around this from a technology perspective and also from an economic development perspective. So currently, my understanding is we have no large data centers which would, pop through the ceiling that this bill contemplates currently that we utilize for the storage of things such as our state's tax records, DMV records, senate YouTube recordings, and such.

[Senator Anne Watson]: If I can clarify the senator's question, are you is the senator asking about whether, say, the the state's own records constitute a data center?

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Do we have the the for clarification, mister president, do we currently have data centers in in the state for the uses which I try to articulate which exceed the thresholds which would trigger all of the activity that the bill contemplates.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate that. And the answer is that we currently do not have any that would trigger, this bill.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Okay. Thank thank you. And, a couple additional questions, mister president. Just I just wanted to thank Yeah. As we move along. My my understanding is that Vermont taxes electrical power consumption. That's pretty much a given. Just wanna see if I can get concurrence from the chair. We tax electrical power consumption.

[Senator Anne Watson]: I believe that well, I believe that we do, though I should probably just double there's probably more to say about that because there's, for example, like, an electric efficiency charge, that that kind of thing. So I could get you a oh, I'm sorry. I could get the senator a list of, all of the, taxes and fees that are on electricity, by third reading if that would be of interest.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. And, of course, Vermont's factories would that consume electricity would also be taxed, not just residential consumers, but industrial facilities are their electrical consumption is taxed. I think that's a given. And I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard the reporters say that companies such as Beta, there was another example used, they do not currently have large load service contracts in place which which is contemplated in the in the bill. Is that correct, miss President?

[Senator Anne Watson]: That is a very interesting question. Again, to clarify, so is the senator wondering about, whether or not there are special contracts, between other large consumers and the distribution utilities?

[Senator Dave Weeks]: That's correct, miss president.

[Senator Anne Watson]: I don't want to speculate on that answer. Again, if I could get that answer for the senator on third reading as I have my suspicions about the answer, but I don't want to speculate.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: I appreciate that. Miss President, what I'm really angling for is I'm wondering if the large load service contract is a new concept or if it's a concept which is in existence for, the variety of Vermont industrial complexes.

[Senator Anne Watson]: That's a good question. And, again, happy to provide an answer on third reading.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. And so we're we're all data center users. Certainly, it's appropriate to support the data centers that we all routinely use, whether we use them on our iPhone or our laptops or. So just recognition that we we are data center users. So we all know that data centers, they don't really create a product, but they are creating a service, and this is a service that we routinely use. I'm wondering if if the the committee had any hesitation about data centers based on the state's energy production and energy strategic plan that we don't currently have enough power sufficient to power up data centers of the magnitude which the committee was contemplating?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you for that question, President. That was part of the that was a concern that the committee had, and that is part of the reason why we were intending to require that they maximize the amount of renewable energy generated on-site and that they also must either have a self managed or participate in a distribution utility managed virtual power plant which is effectively a substantial amount of batteries being operated such that it functions like a power plant. And even that may not be sufficient and so as a result the remainder of the power would have to come through the distribution utility as it would for any other consumer and that would likely require either more generators being turned on or the construction of more energy facilities somewhere in the ISO New England area.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Good answer. And one last question the chair of the Natural Resources Committee. Does the committee did it appear that the committee supported the the initiative of smaller distributed data centers around the state versus large mega data centers? Is that a strategic concept which the committee would embrace, or is the committee, really angling towards, eliminating data centers from the state?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you for that question, mister president. In no way is this bill intended to eliminate data centers from the state. So just to clarify that point. And to get to the previous part of the senator's question, the so one, way to to to hear that question is are small data centers okay? And I think we would say yes, particularly as they would not trigger this, the threshold in this bill. However, if there was some entity that was attempting to skirt this, the threshold and was setting up multiple smaller data centers in an effort to not trigger the threshold. That is actually contemplated in this bill and the intention is that that would not be a way to get around the law. So we've purposely tried to capture that possibility of either expansions or multiple facilities operating as one that that should that should trigger this bill. However, if there was just multiple data centers independently operating different owners, different protocols, different management that that is perfectly fine.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: K. Thank you, mister president. I I wanna thank the senator, and I really wanna thank the committee for good work in the bill. I these really were sincere legitimate questions. I wasn't trying to chisel the committee. I really do appreciate the committee's work on on the issue. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. And I I just wanna follow-up

[Senator Anne Watson]: in in terms of, like,

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: the committee's work on this bill. And one of the things we are trying to really focus on is, things that we've heard from the experience in other states with data centers coming in, perhaps to states that weren't really prepared for them. I just read recently about an issue happening in Michigan and a massive data center coming into a very small rural town and the state not having the systems and regulations and protocols set up to manage that data center. And everybody in this little town is up in arms about what it's going to do to their town. And we wanted to prevent that from happening in Vermont by being prepared as several of us have said in our reports and being prepared from both an energy planning, like where should it be located. There's not a good there are some places in the state that would be well suited and have the load ability on our grid, and there are other places that wouldn't. So a lot of it is grid planning, and our electric companies were at the table with us the whole time talking about this. A lot of it is environmental and land use planning. You know, where do you these these are huge buildings, huge buildings with giant giant footprints. So where would we want those? And would we want them to take up farmland or cut down trees to do that or or, you know, be located next to a school? They're loud sometimes. They have emissions. Some of them are backed up with generators using diesel fuel in the parking lot in other states. I know Tennessee has had a problem with that. So there have been load management problems in other states where they've increased electric rates for customers. So we were in no way trying to say we don't want data centers. There was a bill that did prohibit data centers. We didn't take that direction. What we took the direction was was, hey, let's be prepared. And let's if we're gonna get these things in our state, let them be a benefit to Vermont. Let them lower electric rates. Let them advance our green energy and renewable energy goals. Let them help us reduce emissions. Let them provide benefits to the communities in which they're located. And in fact, we got we got testimony from an expert in energy policy that said if a state is prepared and lays out the rules clearly, data centers might actually be more likely to come. Because what's happening in other states is as they're creating problems, the legislatures there are reacting and changing the rules of the game as the data centers are developing. And so here we have the rules of the game set up beforehand. They're clear. They know what to expect. These data centers, as a senator from Washington said, have a ton of money. So they can they can manage the system. They just need to know what the

[Senator Anne Watson]: game the rules of the game are.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: And this is laying out the rules of the game so when they come to Vermont, they know what test is gonna happen. We know what's gonna happen. Hopefully, local Vermonters, if a data center is proposed there, will know what to happen. Our regulatory systems will know what to will happen, and our electric companies will know what will happen. And so that's what this does, mister president. Lays out the rules of the game, makes it a benefit to Vermonters, and, prevents some of the problems that we're seeing in other states. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. Can I, have a few more questions for the per presenter of the bill, please?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The, chair is recognized.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. The the exchange between the senator from Rutland, and the chair, mister president, just wants to help me get some clarification, so I can get to a yes on this this bill. My question, mister president, is there's nothing in this bill that will constitute a company, and I'll never gonna name some, UVM Medical Center, Husky, Beta, Global Foundries, any of those big companies that actually probably in their own right, our data center as far as what they need to do to complete their work as far as to build the products that they have. There's nothing in this bill that is gonna come back to them and make it so that they're classified in any way as a data center and they're gonna be penalized under anything that's in this bill to keep them from growing and expanding in the way that they want to do.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president, for that question and the answer is that they're that you're correct in in saying that they're that this would not, affect the businesses that you have named as they are not, classified as as data centers under the definition of this bill.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Is there anything mister president in this bill that's going to, have anybody be able to point and I know you kind of answered that. I just got to get there mister president. Is there anything in this bill that's going to say that sorry, but you've crossed that line. The data that you're doing, the the information that you're pulling, the information that you're creating, the power that you're using constitutes you as a data center and therefore we are going to, have to rein you in.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. My understanding of, how we have defined data centers here, right, does not, would not capture those industries. Though I'm wondering about if there was a shift in their mission. Could I'm trying to envision a scenario in which that threshold would be crossed or that if the mission of that business crept, I think that that is an interesting question and I'd be happy to if there was, let's say, mission creep of an organization such that they shifted the primary function of what they were doing, if that would constitute triggering this. And so would be happy to either take a brief recess or get you that answer on third reading.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Third reading will be fine Mr. President.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I thank the presenter and

[Senator John Benson]: thank you Mr. President.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Roll call.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Good. Thank you, mister president. I just have one more question. Again, I'd like to senator from Massachusetts. I'm trying to get to yes. Conceptually, I I

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Would you would you like to interrogate the member from the senator from Washington? The is interrogated.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Thank you,

[Senator Terry Williams]: mister president.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: My apologies. I got one question on, the energy transformation payment. I'm trying to understand, paragraph two, which you alluded to in the report, but I just didn't really catch it. 60%, they're charged us a surcharge of 60% of the data center's electrical usage for a prior year multiplied by the alternative compliance payment rate established by subdivision x y z. I'm wondering if that's been quantified. Like if what given that we maybe put it in if the center could put it in relation to a residential consumer, if we had a monthly bill of $100 and the 60% on top of plus multiplied by etcetera, what would the resulting impact be on the data center's final bill,

[Senator Terry Williams]: miss Brown?

[Senator Anne Watson]: That is a very good question, mister president. I believe that there has been some discussion of that, though I don't have that number off the top of my head. And so, again, if it's acceptable, we'd love to get you that answer on a good reading.

[Senator Dave Weeks]: Yeah. Thank you, mister president. Thank the, thank the reporters.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. I just want people to understand. I really enjoyed this process of going through this bill, but it was kinda like building a runway for a plane we didn't know how big it was going to be. And basically, because we don't know what data center is coming here, we tried to put all safeguards and guardrails in there. Another thing as far as the energy consumption, when we ask them to we put in the bill that when they come, bring your own power supply because there are peaks when they're operating and then when they stop, they just stop. So any extra power that's available as they're generating power, it the like, the concept was that it could go back onto the grid at a reduced rate, and that consumers in that area or in the rest of the state could accept that power at a reduced rate. So we put a lot of thought into this, but the real answer is we don't know what's coming. So I thank thank you, mister Brady.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I just wanna provide a little bit more information to some of the questions that have been asked. The the definition of data center is in the bill, and I'll just I'll read it to maybe help ease some concerns. A data center means a facility that uses or is able to use 20 megawatts or more of power and is engaged in providing data processing hosting and related services as described under US code 518,210 of the 2022 North American Industry Classification System. So this is a federal industry classification system that classifies these entities as data centers. So the companies that were named from the Senator from Essex questions, none of those, to my knowledge, are classified as data centers. They're classified as manufacturers. They're classified hospital or healthcare entities or whatever. They're not classified as data centers. If they were to shift what they do and become data processing, they would reclassify themselves and go through a process to reclassify themselves as a different type of industry under US code, and therefore then they might be in the future, but that would be a major shift in what they're doing. They wouldn't be building planes anymore. They would be processing data. So that hopefully helps in that situation and then to the question regarding the energy payment there this is the amount of energy used or electricity used in a year multiplied by the by the sorry by the the alternative compliance payment rate which is established in law and adjusted annually by the PUC for inflation so in statute it's 0.06 or $06 it's then adjusted by inflation so this current year it's point it's 73¢ because it was set a long time ago so it's been adjusted by inflation and inflation has been kind of high lately. So that's adjusted and so the estimated payment will depend on energy usage but if they use 20 kilowatts of power, which is the floor for this type of data center, it would be about $6,000,000 a year, the payment to the electric company to help the electric company with its needs related to the data center. So and that but that, again, would depend on that rate, which is adjusted by the PUC every year, and it would depend on the actual energy usage of the data center. So if it's using more than 20 kilowatt hours, it would it would be higher. So hopefully that gives you some, sort of, range. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in full support of this bill. As noted, there was another bill that was introduced s two zero five related to a moratorium or a five year stock of development for AI data centers, are slightly different than data centers as defined by this bill. But I rise to speak to a few points that have been covered today. The first is that there's an argument being made, I think implicitly, that there will be great economic benefit to our state if we have data centers arrive here or be built here.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: And I wanna dispel us of that notion because it is not occurring in the places where data centers have been built. What they saw in Texas, for example, was thousands of mobile trailers with workers and construction contractors coming for multiple months for building a data center, and then those people left. And the jobs that occurred in this large data center in Texas were under 20. In a space that required acres, required hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, that residents were suddenly having light pollution coming from the data center, interrupting their suburban living space, where they were experiencing loud whirring noises, where they were being kept up and awoke by sounds coming from the processing happening within the facility. And that was for less than 20 jobs that they got long term. There's another piece that I think that we haven't discussed, which is while we may all use data centers because we have mobile phones or cell phones or, laptops that use that data, we aren't discussing what happens with that data and who is profiting off of that data. And is this actually an overall good for us to have large corporations have mega mega factories essentially processing our personal data for their own profit. Is that an ultimate good? I would argue no. And so even the concept of the existence of a corporately backed data center is not a selling point for me. In fact, in South Royalton, where we represent, they have been so scared and concerned that they have put forward their own moratorium on data centers in their community that they voted on on town meeting day. And I was so proud of that community because when Seth, when Royalton, apologies, not South Royalton, when Royalton as a township passed that legislation, we heard from residents in the community. And I was so moved by this older gentleman who was a farmer from Tunbridge, who walked to the podium and explained his vote, like he was voting yes for a five year moratorium on data centers. And it was because in Tunbridge a few years ago, we had a development come from a religious individual who felt that he should build a community in Tunbridge that would represent his values. That site used less electricity than a proposed data center covered under this bill. That site would have had less environmental impact as proposed, but that community stood up and said, no. We don't want Tonbridge to be changed. We want Tonbridge exactly the way it's been for the last hundred years. We don't want that development. And they fought and they fought and they won in Tonbridge against that individual. They won against that mega rich individual. And when that gentleman stood up and described that story, all he had to say was when I first heard about that coming to our town, I said, it's not gonna happen. It wouldn't happen here. And I ate those words. That's what he told us in Royalton that day when he voted yes, because they're targeting farmland, they're targeting rural low income communities, and they're targeting places that don't have good regulation. So while some of you may be excited about the concept of a data center, I'm concerned, and I think it's time that we as a state put in place important regulations. And while I would have supported a more stringent bill like that five year moratorium I discussed, I think that this is a crucial step for us as a state. And I'll just wrap by saying, this is a bubble. We're experiencing an influx of money as a bubble right now with data centers. It's something that we're seeing companies add to their portfolio, but we aren't seeing the outcome of revenue that they are going to get from these data centers. So my expectation is going to be the same expectation that I think you would have had with large factories that we've seen in Springfield or Windsor, where they disappeared after a short period of time in those communities, leaving them stranded, economically collapsed, and unable to function for years economically because they had drained their resources by investing in this one large company. So I would argue that we are protecting not only Vermonters data and their privacy and their ability to function in an economy, but we're also protecting their livelihoods by protecting water, air, and possible pollution with air and noise. I strongly support this bill and I do hope others do as well. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Essex, are you requesting to speak a third time on an issue?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I'm requesting to actually respond to a couple of the comments

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you requesting to speak a third time on an issue?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I'm requesting to make comments on the bill on the status, senator.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: So the issue, senator, from Essex is that each senator is allowed to speak twice. And the third time, you must ask permission from the rest of the senate to speak a third time.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I'm asking permission for the senate to speak for the third time.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection. Senator

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: If if I might

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: From Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Without object. Mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thanks, mister president. Senators will remember former senator Mark McDonald, and Mark McDonald schooled me on many things. And one of those things was when I first became majority leader, I was very intent on enforcing the ban on speaking more than twice and I stood up to do so and Mark McDonald took me aside and we had a long talk about the way the chamber functions, freedom of speech, etcetera. And his way of thinking about it was that no senator should ask to speak more than twice, but if they are strongly moved, then they might do so and maybe the chamber should allow them that. So in this case, would ask, the senator from Essex if it's necessary that he speak a third time. If he says it is, I personally would not object, but I would I would ask that question of the same. Is it is it truly necessary? Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex, are you requesting leave of the senate to speak a third time?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I am, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, I wanna thank the senator from Addison. I think some of her comments were very helpful to me. And here's my trepidation with this bill. We have a company that's here, national company, they come here, again, like the previous companies that I mentioned. And they have companies, across the nation. And to consolidate, they decide to appoint this company in Vermont as their collector of their data. Of their data to do business nationally, they wish to do in a and then and then in that way, they haven't changed their mission as far as what they're doing. They're just doing it as a company to be located in Vermont and to and to use the Vermont workforce for whatever reason to further their businesses nationally consolidated Vermont. And I think that I could see a situation to where they could be with this bill considered a data center. Also, I wanna thank the senator from Windsor for helping me get to a no because I do believe that this data bill that we have in front of us is a complete restriction as far as to keep those companies from coming here. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I don't believe I've spoken on this bill. That is one whose committee has over the years been charged with regulating utilities. We need to realize that water and electricity are finite. We all like to use them, but I think any of us who've gone through discussions about solar fields or windmills or any of the other things it takes to generate electricity, we're not so enthused. And so one of the reasons these companies are not your standard company that is generating its own data for its own use. They are in the business of generating data from multiple sources. They are a classification under themselves. If in that instance, and that was mentioned by the senator from Essex, some company couldn't do their data center here, we might lose that data center. On the other hand, if we allow any data water and the electricity that are that is here, we could be disallowing ten, twenty, 50 other businesses from getting a permit because the water and electricity is not there to supply their needs. I think that's the balance that the committee has been trying to strike. That if we allow these businesses that don't supply much employment, they got somebody that keeps the lights on and maybe sweeps the floors, but they don't have a lot of high, you know, they they aren't manufacturing. They aren't hiring a lot of people. If we allow them to use up all our natural resources and creating more natural resources is painful and causes pain. I know in the area that the senator rep represents didn't like those windmills up there. They kind of stick out in the natural beauty. So that I think is the balance. We're trying to say, for the economic good of this state, we have to make sure we don't allow one big guy to come in and use everything else up so that the ten, twenty, a 100 little guys can't come in, and that's why I will be supporting this bill.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Senator from Chittenden. Yeah. So, the question the pro tem just asked about if it's necessary to speak, but I don't think it's necessary for me to speak, but I'm feeling so inclined. So what I'll say is, a lifetime ago, twenty plus years, I used to work in data centers. I actually worked right up in that hill, national life, Spent many, many days in that data center at the basement of that building. I used to do a lot of virtualization, p to b consulting. So I know data centers pretty well, and I also know the University of Vermont one. I don't know if you guys know where the whale's tails are. When you drive up to South Berlin, see OnLogic, that beautiful new building. Great. You gotta come up there. Check it out. Right beyond it, the old digital plant. Right smack dab in the middle of the old digital plant is the University of Vermont data center. It's a room about this big, about this big, and it's humming. It's just going brrrr, and it uses close water cooling systems. Systems. So it actually has water coming in. It also pulls cold air in the wintertime down to cool the space. I was definitely not for a moratorium. So I just didn't think that was the right approach. I thought that, you know, these things are not bad. They are advancing this civilization, society. We are benefiting from what the listeners are doing. But I also think a 20 megawatt data center and what I've seen happen in the rest of the country is problematic, is a concern. And so what I really appreciate what this bill does is it just puts in some additional regulations and parameters if somebody wanted to come here. But where I got to, yes on this, k, is that it honestly, it's just not gonna happen. I I just don't see anybody building one of these 20 megawatt data centers where the most important thing is cost of electricity, abundance of electricity, redundancy of electricity sources, as well as land costs, regulatory environment, and a welcoming space. They're just not gonna build one in Vermont. So I I'm not against this bill. I think it's sensible. It's it's reasonable to put these things out there and to have this conversation in case something changes. But when it comes to data center placement, so much of this data processing can be placed anywhere. You don't need close proximity to market. And even if you did, Vermont's not your place. Alright? You're gonna look at up by Hydro Quebec where energy is cheap. You're gonna look at Iceland. You're gonna look in places that have cheap abundant power sources with welcoming regulatory environments. These are huge massive data centers that are being contemplated, 20 megawatts. So I just I don't think they're gonna come here. So this is like drafting a bill on if a pro football team wanted

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: to come to Vermont.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: We could do all those rules, but a pro football team is not gonna wanna come to Vermont. But I do support and appreciate the good work of this of this senate committee, and I will be voting yes on this bill. And, I'm glad that we did take this on because this is a problem in

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: the rest

[Senator John Morley III]: of the country.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I completely agree with the comments, from the senator from Chittenden. I just wanna this is what the landscape provides for right now in Vermont. We have, I think, it's four data centers. They're all less than one megawatt. And the reason why for that is is because that's what our landscape supports. And I don't see a 20 meg ever coming here. But if they did, we wanna have a a road map for them. As to the question from the senator from Essex, if Husky or GF or anybody ever decided they needed so much computational power and they do require a lot of computational power. They send it off-site, out of state to a bigger data center. And if the landscape here was ever such that they thought they had to bring their computation computation back to Vermont, and they got over 20 megawatts, which I think is very, very unlikely as sent center from Chittenden said. They would have to go through a regulatory process that we've laid out here, but I really do think that is

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: very, very unlikely.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden North. Well,

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: now I feel so inclined. Earlier conversation. I was the no vote on the on the finance committee report. And because of all all of the considerations brought forth by one of the senators from Chittenden South, that's why I landed at a no. I know that it the regulatory structure is in place already. Look at my district, even trying to get a 100,000 square foot warehouse built, which wouldn't even be the biggest warehouse in that development. Going through, court proceedings now for appeals and what have you. So I think already is put in place with regulations with Act two fifty, with the PUC, having to deal with the utilities themselves, being able to get

[Senator John Morley III]: that power to the building.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: And then also on top of that, the fact that the point that was made that the cost of electricity, the cost of the land, the cost to build here, I think are all impediments for building one of these 20 megawatt facilities here in the state of Vermont. And and I think we could we've spent a lot of time already on this bill, and I think we could spend a lot more time elsewhere on other issues that are pressing the Vermont. So for that reason,

[Senator John Benson]: I'm on this bill. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor? So a roll call has been requested. Secretary shall call the roll. Senator Baruth?

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brennan?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Senator Brock? Yes.

[Senator John Morley III]: Yes.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 26. Those voting no, three. The ayes have it, and you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on natural resources and energy. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've ordered third reading of h seven twenty seven. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I would move that pending announcements, senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Tuesday, 05/19/2026.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to move that the rules be suspended and that all gubernatorial appointees will appear in the calendar on page thirty three seventy. I believe there are am I out of line?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, you are not necessarily out of line, but the senator from Chittenden Central has to withdraw his motion, and then you may start over.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Very well. Please consider withdrawing,

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection. Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: So I'll begin again. I could

[Senator John Benson]: move on my part is

[Senator Terry Williams]: that the rules be suspended. All the editorial appointees appearing in today's calendar on page thirty three seventy. I believe there are five of them whose names are not underlined, be taken up together and without debate and confirmed by the Senate. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland has moved that the rules be suspended and and that all gubernatorial appointees who appear in the calendar whose names are not underlined to be taken up together and without debate and that they be confirmed by the Senate. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending further announcements, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Tuesday ninth, May nineteenth twenty twenty six.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senior senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance is scheduled to start at 12:45. Get your lunch once again and come down.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, president. Senator appropriations

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: will meet at one o.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet at 01:15.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions conference committee was scheduled for either 12:30 or two. So if the conferees could please go straight to the during

[Senator Anne Watson]: the seventh. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. I was I was waiting to see if this was going to be addressed in some other way during announcements. But I rise largely in my capacity as the chair of the ethics panel, which now has responsibility for discrimination as well. Mister President, I'm not usually one to want to invoke the national climate that we are living under right now. But in a recent statement, from the President of The United States, issued with his presidential signature, he ended that statement using the words, we will find you and we will kill you. And Mr. President, that, referenced a number of groups that in my estimation, the president was labeling domestic terrorist organizations. And among those groups that he was adding to his list of domestic terrorist organizations, was reference to people who are pro transgender. And I bring that up, Mr. President, because individuals may not feel like they are crossing a line with statements that have to do with some kind of dysmorphia people are experiencing or some kind of proclivity that they have in private behind closed doors. But Mr. President, a lot of people are living in fear in this country because of what somebody with, the power of the pen and the power of the military, is saying every day. So I just, want us to be very clear that, we as a body do not limit speech. Your speech is highly protected as we heard from the Senate President Pro Tem, particularly on this floor. But just because it is protected, Mr. President, does not mean it is worthy of this institution and does not mean it is worthy of the office we hold and the power that we wield in the lives of Vermonters. So with that, Mr. President, we have more items up for debate in the coming days and weeks. One particularly tomorrow is about gender identity and gender non discrimination. I would just ask in advance that my colleagues be thoughtful and careful in their remarks so as not to further a climate of fear, that many are living under in this country right now. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Tuesday, 05/19/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 10AM Tuesday, 05/19/2026.