Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Morning everybody. Today is the April 1 and this is Center of Natural Resources and Energy and today we're going be talking about a bill h seven twenty seven, an act relating to sustainable data center development. And we have a first on the press more of this is representative Laura Sibeliot from Wyndham two.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Morning. Good morning.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this bill has come from Oregon just over the summer,

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: talking with ISO and others that have to do with that are working in other regional transmission areas, understanding the impact that data centers were having on the electric grid and on the market for electricity and the reliability in particular in the PJM territory,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: which is to the south of us, for those of

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you who don't know, in the

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: Mid Atlantic areas stretching up into the Midwest, there's been a lot of impact there in terms of reliability and on costs, as well as the potential for environmental impacts. Given that New England has a constrained system, we already have fairly high electric rates in New England because of that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: New England

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: is not a super

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: attractive place for data centers,

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: which needs a lot of electricity, but because of the outsized impact that they kind of had in other areas, it seemed wise for us to consider how our existing laws would greet such a development. We know that they have some minimal economic development benefits. So there are some property tax benefits for the town and the education fund. Very small amounts of jobs. The big investment that they bring, if it makes sense for them, is in infrastructure, either in transmission infrastructure or potentially in upgrades to public water systems. They use a lot of water for cooling if it's not a closed loop cooling system and even So our approach in the committee was, as I said, to consider working with actually three of our attorneys, how a data center would encounter land use, water use,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: our electricity.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: So that is a bill that you will hear. We looked for gaps and attempted to ensure that we had thought about if those gaps should exist, and if so, how we should be sure. One thing that I would encourage the committee to consider exploring is bring your own power to these, and in particular, your own renewable and or clean power to these. So even if there's no doubt that they will be able to hook into the grid, you get the power within, what we are seeing nationally with the suppression for renewables and incentivizing of fossil fuels and the dramatic increase in load that other high load users are bringing, we are seeing a big increase, restarting old factories, and others. So if we are able to have renewable and or renewable and clean, bring your on with, I would just encourage, that was a discussion that was happening between the administration and environmental organizations, and we just did not have time to finish install through that. So we've got our two attorneys here who will do a much better job trying to get the details. Don't know if there's any questions.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: How I would facility bring their own power?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: On Canvas or through their own contracts.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: For natural gas, that's E2. Sure. If we're looking to expand natural gas, I think a

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: lot of centers are doing And we, there was a bill on this side that I think I signed on to patent reporting. Did you talk about that possibility?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: We did not. We took a different approach of And one of the things that we were cognizant of is an executive order that has been issued by the president around limiting the proliferation of AI, but also knowing that states have the right to citing laws, etcetera. And so that's the approach that we took at the same two states. The moratorium may please

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: No.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: The moratorium is

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: really for the purpose of doing what you've done. Exactly. Yeah. So Yeah. In part. Yeah. So so yeah. Yeah. So Any any

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: discussion, consideration of where they'd be signing? Do they have to do like a nuclear power plant that'd be next door or water supply for food? Are they that big?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: Do they create that much heat? They use a lot of water. And so they're in many places in the country, they're hooked up to a public water systems. We've contemplated, you know, any different number of ways that they could access water, but yes, they need cooling.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: The newer ones are closed loop though, right?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: Yes. Yeah. A lot of them are closed loop. And we did take testimony from Green Mountain Power who had identified that they had tested their system in four places where, if they were asked where this might be appropriate. And there were several, including the former site, which was privately owned in Vernon.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. I'm doing very well, thank you. Nice to be here. Maria Royal with Glensington Council. Representative Sigily, you did a great job providing the context. I was just going to provide a little bit more detail about the overall context, and then we can go through the bill in as much detail as you would like. So just to start with what is an AI data center? Basically, large warehouse that contains all of the IT hardware for data processing, storage, and distribution. So imagine floor to ceiling racks containing servers, which are computers, filled with lots of compute components, including high performance, data processing, microchips, the GPUs and GEs. And the reason why I mentioned that is because together, they create a massive amount of computational power, which is necessary for large scale AI training and inference. So that's why data centers have all this IT hardware to make that possible. The simultaneous calculations, parallel processing of data, and I also mention that because these microchips, when they're operating, generate a lot of heat that representatives really get sick. So in terms of the requirements, other than the IT hardware,

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: the

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: power to operate everything, water, depending on what type of system, as Norizon mentioned, you use, pool, these microchips that generate a lot of heat, And then in terms of broadband, fiber optic, get the information to and from. So those are kind of the utilities that are often reviewed, and our people with that is still, to the exception of fiber. And then, physically, land. Typically for a data center that has the capacity to use 20 megawatts of power, The land requirement would be between, there's a range between ten and forty acres. The building itself would be about 100,000 square feet, which is roughly the size of two football fields, including 10 zones.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you for the confidence.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, I know, that's not fair. It's not fair. Know why I do that particularly because I don't need a Canadian. You know, there's so many numbers here and I said, well, the warehouse is 10,000 square feet and, you know, somebody's like, that's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the size of my bookstore, and

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just like, that doesn't sound right,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: and then I'm like, wait a

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: minute, there's a note. So I try to like, even if I get the numbers wrong, you have a visual to know. In any event, so And just to give a little more context, 20, and I'm referring to 20 megawatts of power, because that's the minimum threshold that would trigger the requirements of this bill. If you have a data center that has capacity to use 20 megawatts of power, then you have to comply with the requirements if it's built. So a couple of things to give a little more context. In terms of the very largest of data centers, kind of the hyperscale, 50 megawatts is kind of considered the minimum. These are just industry standards, aren't really specific legal definitions. 50 megawatts is kind of the minimum. For the large, kind of wholesale, full location facilities, 20 megawatts is considered the minimum. So in looking at what other states have done and how they've approached the issue and talking with the sponsor, 20 megawatts is kind of the minimum threshold that other states have looked at, some or more, But I just wanted to provide that context. And in terms of what that means in terms of power, so using 20 megawatts of power is roughly equivalent to serving 20,000 households. And the water, if you used an open loop evaporative cooling system, you would be using about 500,000 gallons a day. But as was mentioned, the type of cistern you use makes a big difference. The closed loop, almost no water consumption, but it does require more powder. So there are trade offs and

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: have to insert will be water again.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or to use the HVAC system, the cooling system, yes, and you've got heat pumps or whatever kind of infrastructure to keep it. Less water, more power, so

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Is there anything in the bill that deals with water use of water? Yes. Yes,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there's a whole section, and I am actually going to let Michael Brady talk about that because he is the water expert, I hope we get there. I think that's all I wanted to say, as an overview. Representative Segonia mentioned in terms of possible benefits, tax revenue, upgraded infrastructure, and concerns being the use of the power, mental use of water, other environmental effects, and equity, social justice equity, where they're cited, and so on. I did provide, and I believe what's on your website are some resources that might be helpful. One is a 2024 US data center energy usage report, which is kind of the most well known report that really drew attention to how much data centers use in terms of energy consumption. Since then, Berkeley Lab, which is the lab that issued the report, what I also provided a link to has been updating the latest research and documentation. So if you want to look and get more specific data, those resources are there. And also, what was really interesting is I provided a link to the Accelerating Speed to Caledonia Data Viewer, which another national institute published. And this is an interactive map, so you can actually go in by location. It's a tool that was meant to help states, utilities, data centers decide where there is the infrastructure, where there is the capacity, where there might be need for upgrades. You can look at a specific area and you can see where there are planned data centers, you can see what the transmission lines are, what the price is for a region, so it's really, it's a great tool, I think, and in part it was put together because there is a federal program for rebranding of an existing federal program for upgrading the grid to utilities in states. Anyway, it's an interesting resource if you want to take a look at it. So all of that being said, so we'll sort of walk through the bill and so we've started So

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm thinking downstream, any consideration for deactivation plan for these splints, is there any, like, radiation hazard? What are the what are the things you know, and I'm thinking that eventually technology will help make the footprint smaller maybe and give us more efficient use from that site. Is that all considered?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a great question and the committee definitely considered decommissioning and whether existing law had protections already, either through Act two fifty or through the PUC if there are energy facilities on-site. Ultimately, they concluded there might not be enough, and so you'll see the very last section asks Department of Public Service to work with other interested stakeholders, NC government, the Land Use Review Board, Secretary of Natural Resources, to propose a model for decommissioning, so that every entity would have to have a decommissioning plan and there are all kinds of requirements that they would need to use. For hazardous materials, even just the data alone, making sure that it's not out there, that there's, you know, sufficient sanitized, I think is the word. So, yeah. So that is an important issue and one that they One

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: last question. The utility company weighed in on additional solar sites saying that, you know, really like you guys to consider just putting them where our where our infrastructure will support it. Is this the the utilities weighed in on UC or?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In terms of the location or just in general? No requirement for providing power.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: Needs. Yeah.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't, because I honestly just don't remember. Didn't testify, but on that specification, I don't remember. So, H-seven 27 passed their reading yesterday in the house. There's not an official as copy yet, so that's why what's posted is the version, the story of all amendment that was voted out of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. There were no floor amendments, ways and means to possession of the bill. They did not make any amendments, so this is the language, which you'll see in the SMS. So that being said, we'll just start going through section one. So this section pertains to kind of the energy usage and the PUC oversight of those tariffs for electricity. So it creates a new subchapter in Chapter five of Title 30. The short title is, The Subchapter Shall Be Known, I think, the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act. Now, the tree of purpose, I think it helps to establish goals further. Line 12, the purpose of the sub chapter is to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwanted costs, and promote sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with state policies. The definitions, again, just wanted to draw your attention to the, on line 20, the 20 megawatts facility that it uses, or is able to use 20 megawatts or more power, and is engaged in providing data processing, hosting, and related services as described in, and then you'll see a six digit code that's part of the classification system that's put together by, it's called the North American Industry Classification System, and the federal office of management budget puts together this document that basically categorizes all businesses, etcetera, so the economy by type. So it's a way of keeping track of market trends, mostly for regulatory or tech purposes, so you can identify What is

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: this called? The North American Industry

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Classification that is cited in the definition.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: You often see it, but it's a pending period, any unseen code that's important to. I

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think there were like six primary different subjects. Right. All kinds of subjects. Yes, and then we'll have the 20 subset combined. And then facilities, just all of the buildings and equipment structures, etcetera, on the site, or to do this one adjacent study. So the first substantive section, section two eighty four on line seven, so this has to do, it's called a large loan service equity contract. This is the contract that's entered into between the data center and distribution utility. What you'll see in here is that there are specific provisions that need to be included in every contract, and ultimately the contract needs to be approved by Public Utility Commission. So for the purpose of ensuring

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Not to say, sorry to interrupt,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: would that have to happen anyway?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Sort of go back.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For a large load, typically, most, I think most large load, most utilities have tariffs for their large load customers, so they have to have tariffs approved. Yeah, so this is meant to just provide standard contract provisions that they all have to have, but yes, I think in general they would have, have to have a tariff. And the tariff basically describes the rates, the terms of service, for the rate they are. And so I believe most of the industrial users, ratepayers, are subject to tariffs, whether they're individual tariffs or more than that. So for the purpose of ensuring just and reasonable rates for all ratepayer classes, and mitigating the risks of financial exposure to electric distribution companies and their existing ratepayers, data centers chosen to serve by an electric company pursuant to a large load service equity contract approved by the BEC. So in that contract, it subsides that it shall include, one, a method for allocating costs that is equal or proportional to the cost of providing electric service to the data center, including providing for equitable contributions to the embedded costs, the existing costs, and the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of the electricity network. And then that further elaborated on Subdivision two, the contract shall mitigate the risks of other rate bearing classes paying unwarranted costs, including any electric generation, distribution, and transmission infrastructure costs incurred to meet the load requirements of the data center or the energy capacity, transmission, or resource adequacy costs incurred as a result of the data center's load. So any upgrade to infrastructure that are required, and also the ongoing operational costs, making sure the grid has adequate supply and meet the demand.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I have a question on that. So normally, if you have to upgrade transmission lines, there is a cost split within ISO New England. Does this, would this supersede that? No. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now this is really looking in state. Okay. So if the district usually isn't very positive, it would still be that, the regional model, you know, there are other states that are benefiting, and I don't know exactly what the model is, but it's somewhat based on how much your state is benefiting from, you know, the increased capacity, but then in terms of whatever Vermont's portion is, how it's allocated through existing regulators in Vermont.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, I guess I'm thinking about, you know, if a data center comes and as a result we have to upgrade transmission line, and we're saying you need to pay for that upgrade, then that covers it and it doesn't go to the ISO New England split.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think that's a good question. I'm give it a little more thought. Okay. I think that if arguably the data center said, okay, we're paying for this infrastructure, but there's excess capacity and other states might benefit, so we think it might be like that, but

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: let me- Yeah, I could just picture it all up.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It might be useful to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: make this harmonize with whatever. Yeah,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah, I think I agree. So then, page three, subdivision three on line three, specify the duration of the contract and the date, or the estimated date, that the electric company will begin to provide electric service to the data center. Four, obligate the data center to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity usage for the duration of the contract to ensure compliance with subdivision one, and that's the cost allocation to ensure other ratepayers aren't being burned by any additional costs. Five, include a reasonable charge for demand in excess of the data center's projected electricity demand at the time the project is entered into, so if they use more than they anticipate using, include a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs, so if the company ceases to do business for whatever reason, then there is, again, financial protection so that the utility and ratepayers aren't left paying for those costs. Seven, include provisions requiring implementation of demand side management operational measures for the purpose of maintaining grid stability and efficiency, including demand response and flexible load management practices, such as load shifting, peak shaving, and the use of distributed energy resources. These are just all, demand response tends to be if there's an emergency that you're able to switch to backup generators in order to ensure that there are no lag outs on the grid. The flexible load management tends to be more long term planning, where you're, it's hard to say, I think most of the power draw for paving centers is continuous 20 fourseven, but to the extent they can shift to either on-site generation if they have those facilities, or to battery storage, or backup generators to leave pressures on the grid, and they're able to do so. So just having provisions to address those contingencies. Then eight, include provisions for the collection of gross receipts taxes, energy efficiency charges, and any other fees or charges that may be applicable to electricity revenues. So these are non new taxes, the gross receipts tax, this is just the regulatory fee, it's actually more of a fee, it goes towards funding the fee and preferred loan service, so the utility will take out a percentage of the rent who collects from the debt center to pay their fee. And you have the energy efficiency charge. There's another provision that specifically says that they have to pay the energy efficiency charge. There are other programs that allow some businesses to kind of do their self managed efficiency and not pay the fee. You'll see that there's a section here that specifically says that if the data center can't do that, they have to pay the fee, energy because it's officially charged. And then just the other fees or tax that may apply, eventually sales taxes or whatever. And then nine on page four, any other terms or conditions required by the commission that are consistent with the purpose of the section and in public acts. Subsection C is kind of an overall finding. The commission shall not approve a large load service equity contract unless the commission first finds, that the same will promote the general good of the state. So just a general finding, but Subsection D then goes on to say, Before approving a contract, the commission shall find that the terms of the contract, and these are specific findings that the agency needs to make. Line nine, subdivision one, will not adversely affect the efficiency, reliability, and resilience of the electric powered system grid, will result in an economic benefit to the state and its residents. The terms are consistent with the principles for resource selection expressed in the applicable electric distribution company's approved least cost integrated plan. These are plans that every utility has to prepare We have an update

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: every three years. What does that actually mean?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's that?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: What does that mean? Notice.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The lease cost integrated plan. Yep, so these are every utility has to submit every three years. Of what's called Home Use Cost Integrated Plan by Statute, and basically looks ahead and try to balance supply with the supply that's available and with the demand, anticipate what some of the needs are, and as it's contemplating any growth to try to do it in a way that it poses a weak spot on rating. So it does it in an economical way. And also to meet the environmental goals of the state. So the triangle of each utility has to have a balance.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is this also known as the demand resource plan?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I would have the PC. Yeah. Yeah.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would sign out. That was okay. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't know. I have one other question too. Sure. As we're going through this, is a, these are conditions for a contract that would be between the data center and the public utility, well, it has to be approved by the Public Utility Commission, but it's a contract between the data center and the distribution utility. Yes. Presumably, if it's a contract, then the distribution utility would also have to approve this as well. Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure that they are.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And presumably, they're not going to enter into a contract and kind of court. Right. But it's just a way of making sure everybody's on the same page and thinking through, which is often related to the next, you know, are consistent with the electrical energy plan approved by the department, unless there's a big cause for preventive variance. So this is what the department does, looking at the electrical industry, same kind of balancing of supply and demand, what the state's renewable goals are, trying to transition towards meeting the state's goals for renewable energy, and doing so in a manner that does not pose unnecessary costs.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But this contract, if a data center does provide its own power, this contract would exist because it's between the electric company and the data center.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: So if it wanted

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be entirely self managed utility. Yeah. So maybe like Global Boundaries has done. Yeah, and just that conversation that we had about bringing your own power. Right, so they would need to, like Global Boundaries did, file a petition with PUC, and what Global Founders did is they set up basically their own utility, fully owned, public service, monthly fee. Yeah. That functions like, and is subject to all of the laws in Vermont, But covering

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: there's not a special thing in here about what- There are no requirements.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are no added requirements. So if they were for like a perfect little energy island, know, maybe they could do that. I think part of the concern, as I understand it from the data center's perspective is, having the ability to access the power grid is an important factor often. So it doesn't mean that they can't be their own utility and buy wholesale and have power purchase contracts, but whether they can actually be their home or their own on-site generation facilities.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, I guess my point was that if they're generating, this wouldn't apply, so we would want

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to make sure that there are sort of equivalent requirements to any entity that's doing their own.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: That'd be a good shift. Yeah. What is good? If they

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: wouldn't they still just because they want to be connected to the grid? They're gonna be connected to the grid I see. Right? They're going to be connected to the grid, this would apply.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would apply. Well, in that okay. So I think I'm gonna have to go back and grab something that I just said, sorry. In your situation, they would be establishing their own utility that would function like utilities. That contract, I know it sounds weird, but the contract would be between their utility that they set up and the data center. I think it would apply.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They would, okay. Because they're still their yeah. Own I see. It would

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be like their own distribution utility. It's a great question, and I think that's gonna be great. Okay. But to clarify that if there's any

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But if they didn't want to go on the global boundaries route But if

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they didn't want to go

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: on global This would still apply.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And not to be much less of being worse.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And not at all. Good. Yeah. Even

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: if they did do their own and they were connected to the grid, this would apply for that reason. Is that correct? Because they're gonna want They're

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: trying to check on themselves. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: For a while, it's not like Right.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So then you would have it would be a distribution utility then. So it have to connect to the grid. And so all of the just like any other people. No, appreciate the questions. So then five will ensure that the data center will be served economically by existing or planned transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on Vermont utilities or other retail related classes, and are consistent with environmental justice and equity policy as assessed to the non law. Then, as I mentioned previously, subsection E, data centers shall not be eligible to participate in an entity savings account or customer credit program under Vermont law, or self managed energy efficiency program under Vermont law. So again, it just has to pay the energy efficiency charge. And then, section two eighty five, energy efficiency design, this specifies that early in the design development phase of the data center, the owner or operator shall consult with the efficiency utility, if the efficiency go on, to ensure compliance with state energy efficiency requirements and best practices. And then section two eighty six, these are reporting requirements. The folks I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: can read.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Let me go back. Sure.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Early in the design development phase of the data center, We'll consult with the efficiency utility appointed by the PUC. I guess I'm just feeling like early in the design development phase is like, is a little squishy.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: anyway, I'm just, I don't know if there's anything to like pin that to, but No, it's good. I'm just, I I realize there's no like solution to that right now, but I'm just making a note to myself.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, no, good question. Sorry, thank you. The first reporting requirement by the center, so it takes three months to becoming operational in a form and manner determined by the PUC. The data center shall begin submitting quarterly reports to the Commission and the Department of Health Service, and each report shall include the data center's water and energy usage, including its peak usage per day, and an itemization of the data center's payments towards shared infrastructure constructed to support the data center.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And shared infrastructure constructed is that if they build transmission lines or

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: water piping that's not necessarily solely used for them. Yeah. Okay. So then subsection B is an annual report requirement by the Department of Public Service beginning on or before 01/15/2028, provided at least one data center has entered into a Water Service Executive contract. The commissioner shall include in the department's annual report, annual energy report, findings and recommendations related to the energy, environmental and economic impacts of data center construction and operation in Vermont, as well as any impactful developments within the region, including any benefits to all ratepayers from electric infrastructure projects undertaken to provide power to water on the lawn data centers. Section two eighty seven is just rule making authority to the extent necessary. Now we'll have the provisions of this subchapter, and section two is the application section. Basically, this subchapter applies to any data center that's not operational on the effective date. The effective date of this bill is on passage, as well as to any existing smaller traditional data centers that are operational on the effective date to the extent that they want to increase their capacity such that they might meet thresholds here. So there are, I believe, five, what are both the traditional data centers in Vermont. Collectively, they use, I think it's about half a megawatt of power combined, just to give you an idea of the size differential.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just flagging. I can picture changing the wording on line 18 instead of smaller traditional data centers, like, just to Data centers that are too small to meet the thresholds. Right.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then, I'll get into the land use requirements, section three on page seven. This is basically under Act two fifty, adding to the definition of development, which would trigger Act two fifty review. Is basically adding the CM-nine-seven, the construction of improvements on a track or tracks of land or a data center as defined in UNESCO. So the 20 megawatt definition is the same. So any data center will be subject to Act two fifty in review. Then section four, I'm actually not going to go through this. Indeed, I'm going go it. This concerns the cooling system.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: So just to note this,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: would want to make sure that this is actually true as it relates to y a's. Wait. Wait. Why is it actually true? Y A's, there's no architecture.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh. So it looks so sure. We can say, like, not outstanding.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. No. That's right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All the tier one a stuff.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But and I will just put a pin in this. I was just thinking, should we actually not allow these m one a's and one b's because they're there for congressional houses. So Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Let's think about that. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's so Then that leads to

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the other issue, though, to do that. Yeah. Then they go to places we also. So I'm like, also use this style as one

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: of the areas that

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: are some industrial for instance.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Got it. Well, that's interesting.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. K. A lot of vendor should think about that. But at least we wanna make sure this adheres. Yes. Which would be a natural place for them to go?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: In the industrial. In industrial. I agree. Yes. Do you have

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: any idea how many of these we're gonna need?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How many days?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: How many of the data centers are gonna need? No

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: idea. No. And think this also might depend regionally ones available.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: They're increasing exponentially right now.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and also loves the meat.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Would like to believe we don't need any. Perfect. Sorry.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, now I'm going let Mike talk about the water vision. Then I'm just going to talk about two more sections on page 10, section five. This is to serve a report requirement for the PAC on or before 01/15/2027, to prepare a written report on projected regional renewable electric generation market conditions. Specifically examining the cost and availability of new regional renewable energy resources during a specified period of time, 2047 through 2035. I'm sorry, I think I missed something. Where did you read notes too? Oh, I'm sorry, page 10. Okay, I apologize, thank you. Okay, so line nine, thirty five. So again, just trying to better understand the markets for renewable energy. And then B is just requiring commission to seek input from interested stakeholders, electricity companies, renewable energy developers, remote transmission organizations, state advocates, other members of the public, department, other state entity as appropriate. And it's not, this process is not subject to confess to case procedures under Administrative Seeders Act. So it's an informal process, is essentially what that is saying. And then submit the report to various subject matter committees, including this one. And then section six is the section we talked about earlier concerning data center decommissioning. So this basically asks commissioner of public service in consultation with the Secretary of Natural Resources, the chair of the Land Use Review Board, and any other interested stakeholders deemed appropriate by the commissioner. Official recommended regulatory model for data center decommissioned, again defining data center consistently with the first section. And then model shall ensure responsible data center decommissioning in a manner that protects and preserves the environment and public health and welfare, shall include the standards and procedures that address, one, approval of a decommissioning plan by the appropriate regulatory entity, two, regulatory oversight of the process, including through site visits and inspections, three, a bond requirement or other financial assurance to ensure a data center is solely responsible for the costs associated with implementation of an improved data commissioning plan, Four, guidelines for data sanitation on physical destruction of highly sensitive storage devices and the documented chain of custody for information pathology access. Five, guidelines for environmental compliance, hazardous material handling, environmental remediation and site restoration. Six, guidelines. Sorry to interrupt.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Am just wondering if there, I don't think there was a definition of data sanitization. I mean, don't think I understand what that is, but I'm wondering if that is an understood

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: defined term.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so, although you could, you certainly could include it, but I know for example, at the federal level, there are decommissioning requirements that include, and I'm assuming that those provisions will be looked at because they apply to data centers. There's another way around much longer.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we might want to to get our own. My point being like that, yeah. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a general understanding of what the data provides information, but there's no reason

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: why I can't define it to be permanent. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I can find, see if there are definitions. Yeah, it

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: would be interesting because I mean, imagine that there are degrees of sanitization actually, know, that if we get

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: way from like, we just wipe this clean. There's nothing here now. Just funnel all the data to dope. Shoot, that's the data. That's the sanitization. Or is it like, we just removed all of the social security numbers that popped up? Or we just removed, you know what I mean? Like, we removed all the regular email addresses, you know, that kind of thing.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So. I think it's a good point. Only thing I might say is that, I don't want to be too prescriptive because this is, it'll come back to you as draft legislation. These are recommendations of the department. They might have ideas about, don't know, don't

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: know who get the point. They might, yes. And

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you, so you could say, nothing. If you wanted to set a floor, you could certainly be that. Sorry,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: who? The PUC. The PUC, okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Department of Public Service. Okay. They're gonna, my lead. Commissioner Public Who's missionary public affairs? Service. Oh, commissioner public affairs. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. We had I know there's

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a couple things, but senator Williams

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Back to the as far as if somebody they started building one of these. So is that included in the language as far as the who was responsible for

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if it remains operational, but if there's just a new owner, I think the contract terms would have to be renegotiated, so consistent with new contracts, what's already been.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: My question is that in the report for decommissioning, might there be, we're trying to protect rate payers in the ramp up of these things. There might be impacts on rate payers on the ramp down too. And it could raise electric rates for people because we built a system to increase the load of electric. And if it goes away suddenly, then it might increase everybody else's rates.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's a very nice little point, and so there was that provision in the contract that had to do with the data center has to have collateral to ensure that if they're stranded costs like that, they walk away from it, and then there's this, that they'll be able to cover those costs. So, right here's our goal, that's the intention. As far as the decommissioning plan, you know, that also, those costs are only on the data center, that they can't be. So that's in Subdivision 3. To ensure data center is responsible, solely responsible for the costs of decommissioning. Yeah, I guess

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm not sure that that would cover the sort of longer term rate impact that it could have on Google.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. From your point, that's just the buildup of infrastructure. Yeah, I mean,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: one of the arguments I've heard in favor of data centers is that it increases the demand, and if the infrastructure can be improved to provide the demand, it could lower everybody's rates because there's more- That's the infrastructure- Right, there's more payers on it. So if they were to go away after the state or the utility has built the infrastructure, then the rate payers who are left are there to pick up the slack and that might raise their rates. Sure. And it might be for a while.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and it's a good question, and we can kind of revisit those non characteristics. That's Where they try to get that out, but they adequately covered that. Okay. Just make sure that it does. Okay. Thank you. Senator, are

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you, I'm thinking about your question in terms of debt that is sort of hanging over, anyway, I'm interested in Yeah, that's another Yeah, like who ends up paying for the thing if this collapses? Yeah. And I'm just trying to think about how that would play out.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Transmission costs are a huge part of your,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The cost of the infrastructure. Just the transmission costs? Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking about this, maybe this isn't exactly the right comparison, but a city pays a ton of money to build a new sports facility, and then ten years later

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: that team leaves, and the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: city is left with this empty big facility and maybe bond payments and debt service for it.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So trying to figure out how to prevent the team leaves. So we can revisit the collateral language, and also I think that's why there's the requirement that they pay, that they are signing a contract that they're going to pay based on their projected usage for the duration of the contract, which is the period of time when we recoup the cost. They're still on hook contractually, even if that's the intent behind those provisions. But if they need to be tightened up, that's possible. Should

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: or could we have in the contract then review whether you see a stop gap decommissioned, some stop gap decommissioned by which of them? Because right, I mean, it's not gonna happen, but theoretically, because we're just getting report about that if something came in before that Yeah. And we thought something, we can have no decommissioning plan. So could we could we figure out a way to do a stopgap requirement?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I will say this, yes, you definitely do. Who approves or who Wonder Bruns are? Yeah, in one of the versions of the bill, they had that requirement in the contract that the data center had the heat machine. I'll just mention that the PUC kind of pushed back and said, don't look at us, we don't do exciting, we don't know, you know, what's it called. So I'm just mentioning that.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: That's okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But, so maybe under have two fifty, or just not under I have 50, maybe it's separate from I do, I have not another issues soon.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So an alternative

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: might be two or three year laboratory and what are the issues that you just assess that and the issue has come up with trying to impose some moratorium for chiller period of time.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it really eventually came up. I mean, I think the committee was aware that that's a possibility, but they decided to Are there pursue this.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Are issues that would arise if we tend to advance?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: More, sorry? I think that will depend somewhat on where the administration goes. So as you all know, a huge push at the federal level to deploy data centers and invest in energy with grid to enable the operation of data centers. There's a couple of initiatives going on, one related to AI, non discrimination of AI with the deployment of data centers. Under the current executive order, there is not a preemption, but there's contemplation that Congress should act maybe in permitting the land use, right? In terms of land use and citing, it's traditionally,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: this is

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: going to be abated, no doubt, there are new birth rules too, depending on how a company interconnects with the grid, but in general, the citing location is traditionally reserved to the states, but there are backstops even in federal law, if it's national order, that there needs to be transmission, But there's definitely a push at the federal level to preempt states that obstruct the deployment phase. So I think it's kind of a wait and see at this point, whether just doing a Norfurn. I think that

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: I had a second quarter plus. Or has that

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a couple of months? Yeah. That's So right I think that that would be okay. But I think part of it also is because a straight up moratorium would be harder to defend, but a moratorium that says we need this for the purpose of doing the research to make sure, right, so I think it just depends how you're structuring it, what's a reasonable period of time so that we can be prepared pre diving. Those are just some of the considerations. What do you think?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What? She has to admit

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I may have missed it. I understand these things cause a lot of noise. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I made it

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: easier to your point about being one a. So I'm yeah. That was I take your consideration.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I did not add to the 50. However, are noise requirements that are considered under Act two fifty. There was, I'll just mention earlier iterations of this bill didn't do the Act two fifty, instead they had the PUC doing a site like they do for new generation facilities under two forty eight, for new telecom facilities under two forty eight, had the PUC kind of doing all of it. But then there was just more conversation about PC, maybe not appropriate, is more land use, this is more appropriate, the land use should be more district commission. So they bifurcated the two. But the reason why I'm saying that, because some of the earlier provisions they looked at, that there was some duplication because they hadn't yet moved everything over. Noise was something that came up. It was in the original that what the PC would look at. Maggie's Review Board testified and went through each one and said we would cover noise, and I think under air quality, if I'm not mistaken. I thought they said it was an air or maybe community impact, yeah. So they did provide some testimony, some of units. So this is the decommissioning plan, the timeline for starting and completing the process after the abandonment, closure, the of operations, and any other matters being appropriate. And so you'll get this recommendation in the form of draft legislation this year, on December 15, when it will come to this committee, as well as others. So that's all that I have unless there are questions for me, otherwise Well, I do have, I think

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I have a question that's really technology oriented around data centers and what happens to the grid when they turn on. If you have something that's 20 megawatts that all of a sudden turns on, the physics of like what happens to the grid at that point, think is, I think what it is relevant to grid stability. So, and we've just got to find, I mean, not necessarily, I don't need to ask you this question, but questions about how to prevent disruption. Disruption, yes.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, think it's a great question. I personally can't answer that, but I know that there are large load users in this agency. You can look and see how new industrial uses transition on the next step and time. And help know, we could certainly talk to that. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So curious, definitely need have that going. Yeah. And yeah, like the analogy, it would be nice to know what other large loads exist and how did those function, Those interact with the group. Okay. Great, are there questions?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe we're Ms. Brown always present.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thank you so much. Okay, and I think we'll do Mr. Green. Yes, you're welcome.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Mike Hartz, Head the Senate Council. I'm gonna start you with section three. As representatives of Celia Maria have noted data centers that they may use a significant amount of water if they're using water for cooling. And one of the reasons that the permitting of the data centers was moved in that the fifteenth because there is generally a comprehensive, not really not really holistic review of the impact of development on water. So that is why it's partly under section three, but to be specific about the impacts of data centers on water, a new section was added to FACT two fifty, and that's in section four that's adding 10 VSA sixty eighty six A. Now the purpose of this section is to address if if the data center is using water, surface water or groundwater, or cooling, then it has to meet certain requirements. But as Sorry.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry to interrupt. I wanna make sure that I'm speaking about this correctly. This section four is embedded into Act two fifty?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Embedded in that into the now standalone section. Back to you, like the slate quarry section. Yeah. When and if your development and your slate quarry, you have to do this. If your development and your data center, now you have to do this with respect to your water usage.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I apologize. Please carry on. Sure. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So as Senator Beck referenced earlier, some of these systems are closed loop, and this section actually requires the systems to be closed loop if feasible. But closed loop systems have their own issues because what is often used in those systems is a coolant, and that coolant commonly has PFAS in it. PFAS is a chemical, multiple chemicals, and it's very good at heat resistance and that type of use. So you have to balance both using and protecting water if water is going to be used for cooling, but then how to address if you're using closed loop system if PFAS is in that system. So let's start with the definitions that have used the definition of closed loop system that's used in South Carolina, in the South Carolina, but there are other definitions out there in legislation in Wisconsin, West Virginia, other states. It's a sealed cooling process in which the same water or cooling circulates continuously within the data center's cooling system without withdrawal from municipal public water supplies, groundwater, or surface water. So it's not coming from the traditional sources. If they're gonna use water, they're gonna have to bring it from somewhere else, or they're gonna have to use a cooler. I'm on the seventh minus 12. Oh, that's good. I'm living right around. And that closed loop cooling system cannot have a discharge of wastewater to a municipal wastewater system, groundwater, service water, unless authorized as a de minimis discharge by ANR. So not using the traditional water sources, no discharge unless permitted by AR, ANR. The definition of data center is the same as the one that Maria walked you earlier. Then you come to the definition of PFAS, and this is a this is kind of a decision point for you. The definition of PFAS that is used here is the EPA definition of PFAS under 40 CFR 705.3. This limits that universe to those chemicals that meet one of these three chemical structures. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health, there are about fourteen fifty two chemicals that fit under this definition. Now the other alternative is to use the broader definition of PFAS, which is it's a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fluorinated carbon atom. Well, increases the universe to about 15,000 chemicals that fall underneath that definition. Now, why is it being limited to the EPA definition in the 1,400? It's because later on there's going to be a monitoring requirement, and monitoring for specific PFAS is hard. You have an EPA methodology that only measures for monitors for 42, or you have an EPA methodology that measures for free organic fluorine in water. But free organic fluorine doesn't mean that that's a PFAS, it could be a pesticide, it could be another chemical. So the committee in the other body decided to use the EPA definition, smaller universe, etcetera, but there's still an opportunity for a monitoring plan that they are one of those to do a monitoring for all preorganic chlorines. I think they had an opportunity.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So just so I can make sure that I am understanding, if we went with a different definition that basically hinges on the presence of fluorine. Well,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes and no. Okay. Because fluorine is an indicator that PFAS is present, but it is not this positive that So

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: fluorine is from

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you could, if we go with that definition, then you could end up with, and you're monitoring for that, you could end up basically with false positives.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That are like, this was not actually PFAS. It was

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: really Okay. Something

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's tough. Okay. All right.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So moving down from there, you're on page eight, line 10. So when a data center is applying for the permit, identify to the District Commission reviewing their application how the data center will cool the facility. If they are going to use water, the data center shall use a closed loop cooling system to minimize the impacts to the quality and quantity of a surface water and groundwater unless the District Commission determines that the use of a closed loop cooling system is not feasible at the proposed data center. Apparently there are some of these systems that aren't going to be compatible with the larger uses or you're going to need multiple uses and maybe that closed loop system isn't feasible at that data center. The District Commission has that ability to make that determination. But then if that data center needs to use water to cool and it's not a closed loop system, they have to identify where they're going to obtain water to cool the facility and where the cooling water will be discharged. And then if they're going to propose to use groundwater, they will have to obtain a groundwater withdrawal permit. Typically you don't need a groundwater withdrawal permit unless you are withdrawing 57,600 gallons a day of groundwater. It seems like a really strange number, like 40 gallons a minute. Okay. And so that that is the threshold that was what was decided upon fast in the 20 times when you got that. So they will need to get that groundwater withdrawal permit regardless of whether or not they're hitting the 57 sets. Likely, they're using groundwater cool, so probably, as Maria noted, exceed hundreds of thousands. So if there's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry. I'll be going on. Thresholds make me nervous. Does this mean that if they, so they need, would need to get this regardless of it? Regardless. Okay, of whether they're hitting.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, 57.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 57, okay. Okay, notwithstanding,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I see, okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now if they're not using groundwater and they're using surface water, doesn't have to use a closed loop system, the coolant. They will need to get a surface water withdrawal permit. Unfortunately, that permit is not currently available, will not be available till sometime in 2027.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Groundwater withdrawal? No, the surface water withdrawal program.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're on PH nine, nine, seven through 11. Oh, okay. So you imposed the surface water withdrawal program, you phase it in first with reporting and then with the directive to ANR to adopt rules, and then once the rules were adopted, the required permitting. The rules in the permit by statute are supposed to start July. They are not even in the rulemaking process yet. They believe that they will go to rulemaking at the end of this year, which means that the rules in the firm won't be available until next year. So a data center is gonna come in in that interim. We won't be able to get a surface water withdrawal permit. We won't be able to use surface water as a coolant for their facility. In addition to the groundwater and the surface water permit, they will have to get all other applicable water quality and water related permits, and you'll see that page nine twelve through 16. So that might

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be storm water.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Somebody referenced the national it meant North American Industrial Classification. There is a stormwater permit that requires if you are classified under SIC or NIIC that you have to get a certain stormwater permit. So maybe they need that permit. If you're going to be building in a wetland, we'll need that permit. If you are going to need to alter or move 10 cubic yards or more in a water course in order to put out your discharge or your inflow, you will have to get a stream alteration permit. Any applicable permit, this is largely bootstrapping because if you already triggered that permit you would have to get that permit, but it's specific because it's being added in Act two fifty and for what a district commission will have to review and determine whether or not to issue the Act two fifty permit. Now the next subdivision is novel, And so this requires a little bit of discussion. So under the Federal Cleaning Water Act, when a federal permit is needed for an activity that will discharge to a state surface water, but a permanent applicant to the federal agency has to go to the state water quality agency and get a certification that the proposed federal activity that's going to have a discharge will meet the state's water quality standards. It's called a four zero one certification. Might remember this Marshall Water And Lake, the dam, they needed the four zero one certification, ANR said here's your four zero one certification, but it has conditions that will be required for you to meet the water quality standards. So typically that's only when you need a federal permit. This subdivision on page nine says the data center shall obtain from ANR a water quality certificate that meets the same criteria, but the agency requires the event to obtain a federal clean water access to affordable water quality certification. No other state activity requires us, no other state permit requires us. This would be the first time you would be applying the federal four zero one criteria to state permits. And I raised this because ANR at the end of the discussions in the House raised questions about, or raised concerns about this section. And I think this is where their concern was. They weren't very specific about what their concern was, but where along the search can take a year or more. They're highly staff meeting. And so by saying every data center that comes in is going to need the equivalent of a four zero one surge, you will be putting the timeline, significant timeline and significant staff resources dedicated to that. And it's the first time it's been done, and I don't know how it would be done because this could be the first time it would be done. Yes,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: sir. Is the but is this four zero one certification, is any of it duplicative of these other water permits that are required, or is this a totally different test?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is the duplication because when you get a four zero one, you're basically the state is basically saying to the applicant for the federal permit, you are meeting the state's water quality standards. Well, you can't get a discharge permit in Vermont unless you're meeting the state's water quality standards. You can't get a permit to discharge to a wetland or arguably to constructing a wetland unless you're meeting the water quality standards. Now the four zero one certification is more comprehensive. They do more studies. They look at things like the antibiotic, product species. They look at flow. They look at things that might not be looked at in some of the individual permits. So it is a more comprehensive, more issues to be reviewed, but there is duplication. Yes. There is duplication. Go ahead. Please. On page 10, if the data center is discharging into the surface waters of the state, they shall identify the PFAS that may be used in the operation and submit a plan to ANR for a program that monitors the wastewater discharge, including monitoring for the presence of PVOS. That monitoring plan has to be approved by ANR on a determination that at least the Vermont Water Quality Standards. And then the addition of PFAS to the water discharge from the data center shall be prohibited in Vermont. That means that they would if they have PFAS in their water, they're gonna have to put in filtration and containment because otherwise you can't control PFAS from getting into the water.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I'm curious about the phrasing there that it shall be prohibited in Vermont somehow makes it seem like in the future it will be? Like, are are we

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could use the present tense there. You could say data center is prohibited from discharging ePlas to surface water. You could you could change that. Honestly, to our graphic manual, should have done that. Shouldn't have used the past. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: So does that imply there are other instances outside of data centers where PFAS,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: water from PFAS can be

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: returned to the environment?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And it happens pretty much in a wastewater treatment. So Wastewater. Okay. That is PFAS in your bodies. PFAS goes to the wastewater system. Okay,

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: all right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it's like in the water going by the treatment center or the treatment facilities as well.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, what about manufacturing processes? Some manufacturing processes have put in filtration, but not all of them. There is no current water quality standard for PFAS, but you, Senator, are probably aware of the landfill in the Northeast Kingdom has a prohibition on any discharge of e class from the landfill BG. And so they've had to put in an speed limit system and then manage that. That can feed discharge however they're not chamber.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But just to follow-up on that question, so with this subsection G here, we are just talking about data centers. This data centers exclusively, it's not, like that sentence would not be applied say to wastewater treatment plants.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, back in 2018, you directed the DNR to come up with a water quality standard for four different PFAS. They're working on it. Okay. It's a difficult thing. No. Haven't. They're trying to find a regional they're trying to find a regional consistency. Mhmm. They're trying to find filtration and and the treatment that will be affordable and implementable. There's a ton of pilot projects going on right now about treatment of PFAS and water. You know, pretty much any major engineering school right now has a pilot project going on.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so it's difficult. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any questions about this section?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. With this bill, I just want to check-in with Ms. Chikowski. Were you on this bill

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as well?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, never read Oh, okay, great.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you talk about Act two fifty, but I think it's great. Fair enough.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it's also very short, at least that's the, you know, adding it to like, this is the, it's in the list of things that trigger it.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: So, okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: right. Oh yes, go ahead.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Do make sure that it applies okay. Basically that out. Just make sure that

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: say, put one eight exempt, I will send it to the termination.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or to put in and or, I'm not sure. I thought what Senator Beck was suggesting, we were thinking about that. You know, so they can put in get more testimony on.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm not suggesting.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's adopt that possession. Right. Okay. All right. Any other thoughts

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: or comments about 07/27 before we move on? So we're going to switch gears to a different bill. She Super. Thank you. How

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are we

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: doing? Would you should we take Can we

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: take a break?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Let's take a quick break. What do you think, ten minutes? We can check it out. When do you need to be gone? When do you need to go?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: You're going be down until the

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: time frame.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: 11:30, I think. Okay. I'm not too worried then. Okay, let's take a- Okay, all right. You have the

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bill I gave to you yesterday.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, so this is Senate National Resource Center. We're looking at age seven eighteen about building energy combos, and we've not yet to walk through the bill with our legislative council yesterday, so we are going to do that now. Welcome.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: LGA has the Office of Legislative Council. I'm here at age seven eighteen as passed by the House. It's an accolade to building energy efficiency. While I'll point this out as I walk through, while this bill did come out of house energy, it contains things that are not related to energy. Specifically, really is about building and housing construction in some ways. So both Dan Leonard and Tim Devlin in my office contributed language to this bill. If you have in-depth questions, I'll point out what things they wrote, but you may need to hear from someone else about the contractor registry, for example. But section one is a finding section. The general assembly finds that public policy for several years has implemented strategies to stimulate construction to relieve robust economic housing shortage. These actions are gaining momentum after appropriate construction standards for one and two unit dwellings, gaining momentum without appropriate construction standards for one and two unit dwellings, and with uneven application of energy efficiency standards. Recommendations by stakeholders in building efficiency experts in the 2023 Building Energy Code Study Committee and the 2024 and 2025 Building Energy Code Working Group consistently find that Vermont's mandatory energy codes, the RVs and CVs, are a subset of building construction codes and should eventually be administered by the Division of Higher Safety, which administers all other building codes. Vermont has not adopted a residential building construction code applicable to one and two unit dwellings, which means that for these buildings there is no administrative infrastructure or enforcement mechanism. On to page two, for implementing energy codes consistently and effectively. Lack of a residential building code also means Vermont lacks the standard of care reference for the public, builders, designers, and insurance companies, or courts, and such lack may also limit the state's ability to access certain federal funding. Lack of consistent and effective implementation and enforcement of the RVs in particular have resulted in low compliance rates according to studies by the Department of Public Service. Recommendations of the 2024 and 2025 working group include leveraging the Office of Professional Regulations Residential Contractor Registry to provide market incentives to contractors to register and obtain volunteer certifications, including in energy codes. However, the registry is not so far approved effective for the public, contractors, or OPR. OPR does not have adequate resources to make substantial improvements to the registry. The twenty twenty five Working Group recommended convening a task force and appropriating funding to assist the OPR. While the ARPs do apply to single family residences, the Department of Public Service has advised the General Assembly that enabling legislation does not provide clear authority for municipalities to administer and enforce the argument at the local level. Some municipalities do wish to have them authority. On to page three. Section two is a session law provision on the adoption of a residential building code. On April 14, 02/15/2027, the Director of Fire Safety shall complete an assessment on whether and how the state should adopt the residential building code. The Director shall submit the report with the recommendation to the House Committees on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on General Housing and the Senate Committees on Economic Development, housing, general affairs.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can ask a question? This is maybe a weird question, but there's this division of fire safety, and it's a division in the Department of Safety. But the division does more than fire safety. It always confuses me when we call the Division of Fire Safety because they seem to have a broader jurisdiction. I mean, if they're supposed to enforce energy building codes.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: They don't enforce building energy codes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What else do they do besides fire safety? It seems like fire Okay. Seems like that we should rename them to have a broader title. I know it's not a question, this is just a statement because it seems to me like they're Are there light safety? Maybe, maybe. Because we're often talking about them as like, oh, they could do this, but then their title is just fire safety. And so it seems like too narrow. It's confusing. Yeah. I also like to point out, so the natural resource is energy, not named in this report.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't think this bill was coming here. Oh, But here it is. So, but here it is. If you'd

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: like to be active in study, you can. I think that'd be great. I was gonna say that.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, this is a session law provision. This is not a directive for the division to adopt or create a residential building code, it is about an assessment looking to do that, but processes have already started. Damian Leonard in my office handles the fire and life safety code, so if you'd like to hear more about the Division of Fire Safety's work, you can hear from him. But this is just a provision for them to report back on if they have a recommendation for adopting a residential realty code.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I ask, realize I'm interrupting here, but something that I was somewhat unclear about is that, because I thought that the state did have a residential building energy code, but we do not

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have a residential building energy code? The state has a residential building energy code. It's the RVs. Yes. And those are the cities. Yes. We're talking about

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a building code. Oh, just a building code. Yes. A construction code. Oh, okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is why I have said other Lynch Council have worked on that. I do not handle birthing codes, generally, I only work on energy.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: That's probably why we were supposed to do.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that's fair. Yes. So yes, and that is why the findings, it references that no one currently fully administers and enforces the RVs and the CVs. They live under the Department of Public Service, which the Division of Fire Safety handles other codes, the Fire and Life Safety codes. Yeah, that's what I mean.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that other, okay building codes are right

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: yes okay

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes well I'm gonna I am not an expert on being worked with a building codes generally

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: many people that build would just say yes I'm

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: gonna just go over here quickly to Representative Campbell, do you have a thought Sharon?

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yeah sure, Scott Campbell from St. John's Barry. We have a resident, commercial building construction code, which is the basis of the division of fire safety's fire and life, this is called fire and life safety code that is enforced in all buildings under their jurisdiction, which includes other buildings, that is all rentals, that's all the commercial buildings. You do not have a residential building construction code, which would apply to one family and two family buildings. DFS in effect finesses the application of their fire and life safety code in one or two family villages, they have jurisdiction over they probably look for basic things like fire alarms and maybe egress and things like that. I don't think that they do full plan review and inspections on those buildings, but they remain,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: good range is fantastic. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Nice, yes, go ahead. Section three is a task force

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: related to the residential contractor registry. So again, I do not work on contractor registry or OPR. This was drafted by Tim, but this is an advisory committee, so it's not specifically amended of NAIA law. There is created the Residential Contractor Registry Task Force To improve the existing residential contractor registry and expedite the creation of certain voluntary certifications, the task force shall act in an advisory capacity to the Office of Professional Regulation. The task force will be composed of the following 15 members: one member appointed by the Secretary of State, one member appointed by the Commissioner of Public Safety, one by the Builders and Remodelers Association. On to page four, one by the American Institute of Architects, Vermont, one member appointed by the Secretary of Education, one member appointed by the Chancellor of the Vermont State College System, one member from the Office of Economic Opportunities and Weatherization Assistance Program, one from VLCT, one appointed by proficiency Vermont, one appointed by the Commissioner of Public Service, one from the Attorney General's Office, one from the Associated Builders and Contractors in the McHenry of Vermont, one from the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, one residential contractor not affiliated with Associated Builders and Contractors of the Infra in Vermont, or associated general contractors in Vermont, appointed by the governor, and one member of the public appointed by the governor.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are those two associations there separate? Yeah. I didn't know there were two of them. Do they,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: seems weird. Do they not like each other or do they have different opinions? I don't understand. No, did I?

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: You've noticed what was primarily a commercial, the other primarily a residential.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I see, okay. Thank you.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bottom of page four, powers and duties. The task force shall advise OPR on ways to address shortcoming of the existing residential contractor registry, including, on to page five, improving public facing web presence, identifying cost effective outreach strategies to the public and residential contractors, identifying and creating lists of trade specialties, and clarifying the relationship between business based registrations and individual based certifications. They shall advise OPR on how to expedite the creation of voluntary certifications, including identifying, vetting, and recommending credentialing entities with initial certifications from the following or similar subject areas: Construction site supervisor, base energy code, both residential and commercial, and high performance building. Assess how to improve the energy education modules required under Pre VSA Section 138, and whether they should be administered by the Department of Public Service. Assess whether the type of regulation for residential contractors should be changed from registration to certification or licensure. I'll just pause for second. We're going talk about 3BSA Section 130 on the next page, so we'll come back to that. Assess whether and how the regulating entity for residential building contractors should be transferred from the Office of Professional Regulation to the Division of Fire Safety. And onto page six, consider any other strategies to improve and streamline the regulation of the residential construction industry. Assistance, the top portion will have the administrative, technical, and legal assistance of the Office of Professional Regulation. The Division of Fire Safety and Department of Public Service shall provide informational assistance and technical expertise to the task force regarding issues related to building codes and energy performance. Reports beginning 2026, the task force shall submit annual reports on November 1 to the Office of Professional Regulation, the House Committees on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and on General and Housing, and the Senate Committees on Economic Development and on Natural Resources and Energy, with findings and any recommendations for legislative action. Meetings. The member appointed by the Secretary of State shall call the first meeting of the task force to occur on or before 08/01/2026, and the task force shall then meet at least monthly through July 2027, and then thereafter, at least every other month. The task force shall select a chair to promote its members at the first meeting. On to page seven. A majority of the membership shall constitute a forum. The task force shall cease to exist on 06/30/2029. And then compensation and reimbursement. So there's a per diem provision here. Members who are not otherwise compensated by their employer, pretenders shall be paid per diem as in conformance with 32 PSA 10. Payments to members of the task force authorized under this subsection shall be made for monies appropriated to OPR. And at the end of the bill, the appropriation that was here for this was struck and is now contingent on there being any funding made for it. The whole thing is contingent on it or just, well, looking at their, it's the duty to implement, yeah, the duty to implement the task force is contingent upon appropriation. You also could change that so that it was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the duty to pay is contingent on

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: funding and require them to meet without pay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or you couldn't meet it as students.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I guess I would also flag, I'm

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a little concerned about the, on page six where it says they, my IT room where it says they have to meet at least monthly, that's a lot. And you know, if they're enthusiastic and want to meet monthly, I'd support them, but it could be Yeah, usually we say this many meetings, it's but like you're allowed this is pretty open ended. I'm surprised our appropriations committee can flag that if you write So it

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is not a study committee or a working group. This is an advisory task force that is set to last for three years, basically. So it is a long term body of some patients. Isn't it?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I guess, true or not, this is more of a question for Tim, but the OPR, usually when there's a rep, some kind of entity that gets, maybe not with registries, maybe it's still not

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: with registries, but for certification and licensure, there's often a lead advisory board that sits above it anyway,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that has people from the industry and whatever it is, like optometrists, for example. That's the same.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And yeah, those were permanent. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know what Wendy said it was staying up. I guess maybe, I just think it's kind of funny that we had a,

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: there was

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a working group that recommended a task force. Okay, so on page seven, the next set of sections, sections four through nine, all largely make the same change, and it is about the energy education requirements for certain trades and professions. So first, Section four is amending pre BSA 138, which is the education requirements for specified licensees. At the bottom of page seven, the office. So here that is OPR. OPR shall require each of the licensees described in subsection A to complete an education module regarding the state's energy goals, and how each licensee's specific profession can further those goals. On to page eight, the education module currently there's a requirement shall not be more than two hours, but that is being struck. The energy module shall be required as a condition of initial licensure and each license renewal. The module shall explain how the work of the profession or trade intersects with the energy code and affects the energy airflow, energy, airflow, and moisture management dynamics of the building and the integrated system, and include education on any state or utility incentives relevant to the profession. It strikes the language that currently exists that says that the energy module shall provide general information on the state's energy goals, and then also shall include an update on energy goals and any update regarding energy programs. So my understanding is that currently that requirement is pretty high level and just describes the itself, the state energy goals, but this is changing it so that it would be more related to the specifics of how energy, airflow, and moisture management relate to each of the professions under this section. And further down on this page is being added that beginning on 01/01/2020 and every three years thereafter, the office shall review these education modules, consider recommendations by relevant stakeholders, and update the modules as necessary. So this entity requirement applies to a specific list of trades under the statute. I'm sorry, was looking for the list of the trades that are covered by this statute.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can get back to you on that.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sorry, here it is. This is for architects, landscape architects, pollution abatement facility operators, potable water supply and wastewater system designers, professionals, engineers, property inspectors, real estate appraisers, and real estate brokers. That are licensed by OCA.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I apologize. This is relative to

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you just, I think I missed the connection.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Office of Professional Regulation has the licensing authority over the list of professions I just read. Okay. There's a requirement for education for those trades. And currently the statute requires that they just be educated on what the energy goals are. And this is requiring them to be a more specific type of energy education. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I think there's some professions that are actually regulated by the Division of Fire Safety. I think that's another thing they do.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, we're going there next. Okay. Okay. So on page nine, heating equipment technicians. So these are the education requirements for heating equipment technicians that, yes, are under the Commissioner of Public Safety. Okay. So again, farther down, education module, this one leaves intact that it shall be no more than two hours and shall be a required condition of initial certification and renewal. The module shall explain how the work of the professional trade intersects with the energy code and affects the energy, airflow, and moisture management dynamics of the building and integrated system.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They kept the two hours into this one, but not to

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the other ones. This sun stays even more directly, they need their heating. Was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: there any logic for striking out the not more than two hours for the one, but doing it not more than two hours for the other?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, go ahead, this resident again.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Originally, we had short, we had the nine more than two hours for all the grades. DFS felt that that would be an issue with their licensing and training programs that they have already in place. It also seemed appropriate that especially design professionals, architects and engineers, would not be limited to ours, they really have a much more broader input on designing and constructing the buildings. There's certainly a rationale that perhaps two hours is not enough, but in the course of cracking the bill, we tried to compromise with everybody and so it was compromised with DFS. Okay, I did.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, that's fair and we'll hear from them as well. Seems to me that we can strike it and then they could still, if it's less than two hours, that's sort of like, there's nothing to prevent them

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: from keeping them for more than

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: two hours. This is just saying that it can't be a long part and part of me feels like it's just a matter of flexibility. We're not mandating that it be more than two hours if we strike it. Just the

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: spirit of compromise. That's fair.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then when we can have that conversation.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: I would also point out that the previous section relating to OVRs, regulated ratings and professions, was referred to back in the inception about one of the powers and duties of the CASCOs, Department, whether that design of the energy education module should be under public circuits rather than under OPR. OPR requested that the person that say they don't have their geez and energy educating the public. So again another compromise to the staff of our facilities, stakeholders involved. Finish building and lighting safety. Yeah, renamed the division of fire and building safety.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It is an alternate bill. Exactly. It seems like we need

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to broaden that. Maybe more than that. There would be an associated cost.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Redeeming. New business cards and pension, all that stuff. While we could face it in. Okay. On page 10, so the language here matches the language largely in the prior section, and so it has the every three years they will be updated, the modules should be updated as necessary. On page 10, section six, this education requirement firmly exists for commissioned boiler inspectors. However, this amendment is proposing to restrike it because perhaps it is not relevant for boiler inspectors. No, they're caught

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: in mind, you'd be able to.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The energy stuff is No longer required education module. Just a few boil things. You

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: sorry, know,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: anyone's here. The office says

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: the boiler inspectors only inspect and test the do not install or adjust boilers. So that was the proposal. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 11, section seven, electricians. And this is for their energy module. And so, yes, this one still says that the education module should be enrolled in two hours and is using the updated language that it shall be on gas energy, airflow, and moisture management, and then updated through three years. Page 12, section eight, the education module for plumbers. Again, same, still they kept not more than two hours, and then updating it for energy or low moisture management, and then again, updated every three years. That brings us to page 14. Section nine, Energy Professionals Regulation Report. The Office of Professional Regulation shall conduct a summarized process to assess whether home energy rating systems, raters, and energy professionals should be regulated professions. On or before 11/01/2028, the office shall submit a report with its recommendations to the house committees on energy and then gov ops and then Senate and development of natural resources and energy. So again, this is a session law provision asking for

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a report. I don't generally

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: work on OPRF stuff, so I can't really talk to about sunrise processes, but this is a type of process that you go through to apparently for looking at whether something should be caught up with a professionally regulated profession.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Have some gov ops veterans not familiar

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, with them great, yeah, I used to do.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's an interesting thought about her ratings and energy professionals. I feel like energy professionals is, that's a big term in my mind. Since we have Representative Campbell here, who are you thinking of specifically for energy professionals? Like weatherization workers, or are you thinking of

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: auditors, energy auditors? Auditors and inspectors, that sort of thing. People who could inspect a building for energy compliance, for example, that sort of thing. Also, did mention hers are regulated under the Department of Public Service. There are, I think there are four of them maybe, seven maybe seven in the state. The reason they're either DPD or public service department is originally when they became a regulated profession, there was only one at the Department of Engineers Corporation, which was which DPS was involved in regulating other wellness. So this was just a proposal to see whether they really should be put under OPR or all the other regulated professions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so in a way this is about the potential shifting of regulation from DPS to OPR.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: For HRS raters, and then whether to identify any professionals as a trade or professional, should it In other words, should there be some credentials associated with them?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead. Well, not all professions are regulated by OPR. Not all. The electricians, etcetera, are under the division of fire safety. That's right. The badly named.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: That's correct, yeah. And then sort of building trades.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I'm wondering, mean, the HRS readers, that's what they it's the first time I've ever heard of a HRS reader. I can imagine like a cool logo.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's keep going.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Page 14, section 10. This about, this starts the sections on building energy curve enforcement. Section 10 is amending 30 GSA, section 51, the residential building energy standards, the RVs. It's adding language in subsection J for municipal enforcement. A municipality may enforce the RVs within the municipality in compliance with this section. So this language is also added in the next section for the CDs. So your committee specifically hasn't talked a lot about RVs and CDs recently, though perhaps you may want to. The residential building energy standards have existed since 1997 and the commercial building energy standards came into effect a little bit later than that. The Department of Public Service semi regularly adopts building energy codes via rule. They adopt them based on a national code, the IECC, which is updated regularly by a national committee. And then the Department of Public Service goes through a process when a new code is issued to review the code updates, convene an advisory committee, and determine what parts of the new code should be adopted and what sort of Vermont

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: specific things should be in

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the code, what kind of variances should be specific to Vermont. So it's based on an actual code, it's updated approximately every three years, although the requirement to update it every three years is still a law where it's statute. The Department of Public Service does not specifically enforce the RVs and the CDs. They are enforced sort of by implication. So builders are law required to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, do want to yourself to the director? Anne from Brewer. Okay.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: thank you. Okay, go ahead. The RVs and the CVs got updated.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The department does not specifically enforce them though there is a certification requirement, builders are supposed to certify that they have complied with these codes because they are the law. Additionally, I will point out that Act two

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: fifty serves

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as an important enforcement mechanism because it is one of the ways that you meet criteria 9F, but if things are exempted from an Act of 50, that doesn't happen. And municipalities don't necessarily have full clear authority to enforce them, either because it is a state level code. And so this is adding language, however, though there is existing language in both fifty one and fifty three about if towns have a certificate of occupancy, they can have this as One of the requirements, yes, one of the requirements to obtain a certificate of occupancy, but otherwise it is slightly vague about the enforcement mechanism. So this is adding a clear directive that municipalities have the authority to adopt, to enforce the RBAs and the CVs. Further languages added that we'll get to that says they cannot adopt their own, they can just adopt by reference, incorporate by reference the state's level ones. So question about that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: A way, municipal, like adding this language I think makes sense and in a way it feels pretty clean to me since there's not great enforcement at the state level for the Arby's. My question is about the CDs. So the state is already doing enforcements, especially for public buildings. No? Okay.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: They're not doing Doctor. CDs for historical instruction codes, yes, but Doctor. Pepper energy codes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, wow, I'm still sorting through it apparently.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Most of the codes live at Division of Fire Safety. The energy codes do not. The Division of Fire Safety does not have any authority over them.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wow, but I need to like draw a visual for this. So, the Venn diagram of like where things live and

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The RVs and CVs are in the Department of Public Service, right? Yes. Yeah. But they don't do active enforcement. They only do the updates to them. They just hover there. Yeah. I think one easy way to sort of denote it is that I handle energy codes and I don't handle building codes at all. Another attorney in our office handles that because they are housed within an entirely different agency.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Who's the attorney that does that? Damien. Oh, let's get Damien.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We have Tamen and Damien. You can

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: do that, Ellen. So many lawyers. Fun. Yes, go ahead.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think you do get greater compliance with CVs because architects are obligated to always follow the law. And they're not gonna risk their licensing. So you do tend to get better compliance with commercial and very little residential.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so, but in terms of commercial enforcement, the Division of Fire Safety is doing commercial building construction, but not for the CVs. Correct. Because they're with DPS. And so there's nobody doing CVs enforcement?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not in the traditional sense, no.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Plus the discussion. Okay. And one. Both divisions, fire safety. So, yeah. Right. And what we're looking at here is potentially municipal enforcement of the CVs, but not the RVs.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, the RVs. As far as the RVs. Oh, They're both in there. They're both in there. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good job. My apologies. Thank you. Yeah. Making sure I'm sorting through it. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section 10 is amending the Arby's. Section 11 is putting the language in there on Okay. The And then in Eugene, there's this other whole topic of that within the RVs and the CVs. Safe Harbor? Safe Harbor Suburban, which is in bold which is being added to bold section fifty one and fifty three.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that where we're going right now?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Do want to pause? Should we take that in

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a minute? Think I Good. It's too good to breathe for a second and talk

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: through it. Yeah, so this is an entirely different topic, but still related to the RV's intuition. So in September, the governor issued an executive order on housing. In that executive order, he said that it was, builders were allowed to use the twenty twenty RVs or the twenty twenty four RVs, and he also said so for the CDs. So either could use the current rules, which are the twenty twenty four rules, or the prior version of the rules of twenty twenty rules. The governor's authority to issue an executive order and what he can put into the executive order is constrained by the constitution. So he cannot change statutory law via executive order. And the statute says that you can only comply with the current existing rule, which is the twenty twenty four rule. This is a problem because both sets of statutes also include a citizen suit provision. So people can sue if their home was not constructed to the requirements of the code. And this creates a potential legal issue for anyone who followed the governor's executive order in good faith, because the executive order provision is not legally valid. Language is being added in both sections ten and eleven, creating a safe harbor provision for builders who follow the governor's executive order. So on page 15, this subsection applies to any residential building for which a certificate of compliance with the Arby's was filed pursuant to this section using the 2020 Arby's compliance path. During the period beginning on 09/17/2025, the effective date of executive order number sixtwenty fivetwenty twenty five, and until such time as amendments, the RV's rules are adopted. So this is kind of a vague end date you may want to consider a date certain, or if this matched your intent.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You may be aware

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that currently, LCAR is reviewing updates to the RBAs and CBs rules. So there potentially will be updated rules that you to meet this provision. At the moment though, I don't think you know when specifically those rules will be adopted.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes. And regarding the issue of whether the governor's executive order is unconstitutional,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: is that your opinion or have they been litigated to?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It has not been litigated. Okay. The attorney general's office issued an opinion that they also agreed that it would potentially be found unconstitutional. So yes, nothing is unconstitutional until a court says so, but it does seem to be outside of his court.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And there's potential liability for anybody involved in it.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yeah, the whole safe harbor thing is given.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 15, line eight.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Before we move on, on that, LCAR is going through this process now, would we have a sense of when that, what the timeline is on that process? Tomorrow.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Oh, tomorrow. We met

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: on it last week.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. We finished it. Okay. So we may have well, it's not will we over by tomorrow? Or do you think after tomorrow, like, what's how is the run out?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the end of the forty five day review period is Saturday. So some kind of decision needs to be

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: made tomorrow. Okay. Yeah. It's either

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an extension or a vote.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We'll just try to keep up to date. Thankfully we have some members who can help us with that.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, let's see. Page 15, line eight. A building described in Subdivision 1 shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section. The use of the twenty '20 RV's compliance path during that period shall not by itself constitute a violation of this section or of any rule adopted under this section. The state shall not bring an enforcement action under this section based solely on the use of the twenty twenty RV's compliance path for a building prescribed in this subsection, and no damages, penalties, or other relief shall awarded in an action fraud or subsection G based solely on such use. Even though these are not enforced, there could potentially be an enforcement action? Yeah, I mean, I think the statute is a little confusing, but the Department of Public Service has There is a requirement that there be a submission of compliance to the Department of Public Service. Oh, it's a sort

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of a self attestation kind of thing. Yeah, Got it. So it could still be a homeowner saying, I don't think this was built to the 2024 standards, but they were built to the 2020 standards. So that, in that, could someone still sue, could a homeowner still sue based on that?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, that's what's-

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's what I'm saying. It seems to me that's what's being prohibited. Yeah, we're talking

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: about two different things. He's talking about something sort of, there's no different potential options, right? So there is a sense of supervision, so a homeowner could sue, but it's the exact statute that it says currently. Then there is this sort of vague idea that the, I always sort of thought that the Department of Public Service had enforcement authority. They did not enforce in the traditional sense that this is making clear that a state agency could not bring an enforcement action if they found they had three.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Well, was requirement that a builder filed a compliance certificate. Yes. And if they use the twenty twenty compliance certificate, then they could be technically in violation of the, because twenty twenty four is what's important right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Does, maybe we're getting there, but is there a similar protection against a citizen suit?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I just said. It's against poll. So subsection G, which is mentioned on 13 is the citizen supervision. Okay. And also it says there can't be state enforcement. It covers both options. Ben. Thank you. And this language is also included in the next section for those CDs as well.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: And the Safe Harbor provision was requested by the Department of Public Service, which seems reasonable and admirable. The voters responded for this confusion about the 2020 versus 2020 So the

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: next section is section 12, which is amending 24 VSA 3,101, and this is about municipal authority related to building codes. So language is being added on page 17, that the adopted codes or regulations that municipality can adopt may incorporate by reference the residential building energy standards and the commercial building energy standards established in their ESA chapter two. So they already have some existing authority in this section. It is not specific to energy codes, so it's added specifically that they could incorporate reference to RBCs. Further language on this is added at the bottom of page 17, incorporation of the RVs and CVs pursuant to subsection A shall allow the municipality to enforce those standards. Wait, earlier in the bill, we gave municipalities the ability to enforce the RVs and CDs, and this is building codes specifically, not the energy codes? No. This is at, this is a. Okay. The authority for municipalities to specifically enforce the RVs and the CVs is being added to the RVs and CV statutes and the N is a building code statute. That's what this is. Yeah. Mean, it's still

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: this is an attempt to clarify what was referred to as a gray area in statute by the Public Service Department, apparently, who felt that they were not peer authorities for municipalities to enforce, adopt workforce energy codes. And yet, in Power 24, the municipal title, it seems to say, if you look at the existing language at the bottom of page 16, it seems to say that talents do have authority to regulate buildings. And BLCT I think would say that they felt that they had authority. So this was in terms of clarifying authority and also to dovetail with what I mentioned earlier when I was in the air, an effort underway using grant funding to help municipalities develop uniform procedures for applying energy codes. So this was an effort to clarify statute and also go to that effort.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The Masons?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the last section is on page 18, section 13. There's a contingency of funding provision. The appropriations committees have been adding this language about whether or not something gets funded. So section 13 is the duty to implement the contractor registry task force in section three is contingent upon an appropriation of funds from the general fund to ODR for that purpose. I would just say, I think that sometimes adding contingency language like this is confusing. So this does currently say that the task force, the duty to do the task force at all is contingent on funding. And so as I mentioned, you may want to consider if that is your intent or if you would like them to be without per diem funding or if you like something different. Was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: there an appropriation beyond just the PDMs? Yes. There was an appropriation to OPR itself to commence the whole thing? Yes. Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes, I will. Just a question about how do we get this information for Public hearings. Is there any provision for that? I mean, they do the rulemaking. I don't understand. Well, contractors that are doing the building probably don't even know that there's a law that says they have to be registered. It's quite a few. So what I'm saying is that, you know, the on this The contractor registry. Well Oh. This this bill will affect contractors and people that fill houses, but we get disinformation removed. It becomes law. So we can take more testimony

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: on that exact question. And the contractor registry Yeah, sorry, it's not changing at all in this bill. Already exists. This is not my area of law.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Would say that the appropriation that was in the original bill that was struck by the House of Liberation included money for an outreach program to contractors and consumers to raise the profile of the residential contractor registry and also provide funding for them to contract with some entity build and maintain a website that is much more consumer oriented. The OER says that that's not really, don't have funding for it because that really, know, it's their job, but it obviously would make a big difference to consumers and the background is actually to be able to see who's registered and what they do and be able to sort and filter. Know, do everything that you expect to do when I'm going to set it down. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: any questions about seven eighteen? Okay, we'll hear more about this and you have to go. Okay, so with that, we're not going to do seven ten today, and so that's, that is totally fine. I would love to take one more quick break. The only other thing we have on our agenda today is to start the discussion of a budget letter. And I could use a couple minutes ahead of- Orgiveness. To organize myself before we jump into that conversation. So let's take a five minute break and then we'll

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: this is a natural resource. We're coming back from a break and I don't have a printed out document to show you, but I can tell you what is on my list right now. Because in my mind, there's sort of two sections, right? Like one is money that has to do with the bills that we passed. And then the other are, if there's just separate allocations that would be important as a group request, that would just normally be in the budget. We're going to hear from some folks tomorrow who are be asking to be in our budget letter. So just in terms of the bills that had money in them, I just wanted to come check my thinking with you all. I have 218 SALT, two nineteen energy nanometers, two twenty three which is the study, and it's a study on lake stuff. Yeah. Yeah, this is Seth's like they, and just cause there was, some, right, the per diems for that. And then I also have 03/25, which had more plans and then the outreach engagement. So I just have those four, but looking at, like I didn't think there was any money in portable solar. There's no money in the general permit for water stuff, feedings, right? And then there's the $2.13, the water meter bill, there was no money in that. And there's no

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: money in C PACE. Yeah, correct. Okay. I think you got them. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: None of them had the bottom. Yeah, 03/25 had the most, but most of them are just

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like per diem. 100, 200.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. 325 at 200. Yeah.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, and I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think the $2.18 might have had 200 for the salt bill to stand up. Though, to be fair, when we passed it out here, we just said it's contingent on funding, but it didn't actually happen. We had a number last year, didn't remember this year. What was the number last year? It was in the 200 to $2.50. Yeah, okay. Range.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think we should include all of our bills on our list. Yes,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: agree. After that, I did have recorded that we did hear from the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, the NRCS folks, they had asked, there's So they're in the governor's recommended budget at $6.12, last year was at $6.12, and their ask is for $9.48 and the increase was because of healthcare costs and money from the state. Well anyway, we might want to, we are going to hear from them

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: again tomorrow in the There's some one time in

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: the budget, think, past version.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: For them, them systemically? Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll even know tomorrow anyway, we can get the update on that. And then we're also gonna hear from VHCB. They're gonna give us a general update on their work and then I

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think they'll set up.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Windham-2)]: Just an update on budgets.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Will you be able to provide us

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: a list with all of the groups and all of their asks? That we have heard or Or that is out there.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's a long list.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, mean, I don't know.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mean, also- Yeah, mean, that's what we usually do in healthcare, but there are

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a lot more asks in that area.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And does healthcare, do these groups come and present to- Yeah, Tom, welfare, we have done in the past is create a spreadsheet of all the asks, JFO would help with it, but there's a JFO person

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: who does health care specifically, and I don't think there's a lot in our area.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There's 195,000,000, that's outside the budget. Right?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's And that's really for specific things, but-

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are you doing the health care? Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But I don't know, I mean, because our, in our jurisdiction is a little, because for example, one of

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the things that I would like to have on our list is the farm security fund. This is our money

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: list. Okay, so that's it. So we

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could potentially improve. Yeah, having some money put toward that would be helpful. And then working lands is another one that is kind of in

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: our jurisdiction, but kind of not.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: You know if

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: does Addison include firm security in there?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Probably, I don't know. They've already done their letter, so maybe you'll get it this afternoon.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't seen what's in that letter,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but I heard this morning that they've done a letter, but they'll probably have both those things, I would assume. Servlearner is also something that we have heard from in the past and I've been in touch, so. Yeah. And then there's folks who I talk about the Vermont World Technical Assistance Program. One of the things I can do is look at the scope of things that I think are going to be applicable in this committee. There is one other bill that I think is going to come to us, which we should hear about. It's about Dan's safety. I was going to ask about Dan's safety. Yeah. It was

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an issue last year that we talked about whether or

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: not they needed more money. Yeah. Well, I think they found some money to shift, which made it into the house version of the budget, but apparently it needs to, they should, the word that I have heard at this point is that they shifted more money than they really had available. Now that there was more money under contract that they didn't realize was encumbered. So that may need to shift. There's, that's kind of the whole thing. So we should, we should just hear about that at some point.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: When do you, when's, when are the letters

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: sort of?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I asked this last week and Senator Prichlak said sometime in the next two weeks. So we don't necessarily have to have it done by Friday, but I'd like to sort of be ahead of

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: it if we can.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just a reminder that I'm not here on Friday. Well, this Friday. That's right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. So that's a good reason to not vote it on Friday anyway. You guys could do it without me. I would like to be here. Yes, that's fair. And I think there's, just even talking to it now, it's occurring to me that like, we may not be done by part anyway, hence Yeah.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: The dam funding grant for removal or for repair?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Was a social A lot

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: of entities out there would like to get

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the Yeah. Money to I think this was separate from that,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but I think

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that's worth, there's a fund specifically for dam safety and repair. This was, should hear more about it. My understanding was that it was separate for a different issue related to work that the was going to do around basically planning operations, but we should hear and learn about that. But yeah, the dam safety fund is worth looking at. Anything else that, so I've got the farm security fund, anything else that is on your radar, things that might be a priority?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: we brought in grad cert and others.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, right. Yes. Oh, also, I think you missed this. We talked through the bills. We said that we should probably put our bills at the top in terms of our priority list and that being baked into three twenty five would be a part of that.

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Okay. Makes sense.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, now that we're talking about this live on YouTube, I bet you're gonna hear some other people. Nobody has. It's just happening. It's a good point. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Did you, when I came in, you were talking about, they did a letter and said, sorry about the house Department of

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, we were talking about the health and well-being. Oh, okay. Yeah, just how other committees have taken this. Yeah, okay. So our bills so far have got conservation districts, VHDB, Farm Security Fund, Vermont Technical Rural Assistance, Working Lands, Serve, Learn, Earn, something about dam safety, possibly the dam safety fund. And this is just the scope of the universe. I'm not saying this is what will end up in the letter, but just want

[Representative Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: to make sure that we're

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: capturing everything so far. If anything else comes up, certainly let me know. Okay. And I'll hopefully have something for you to look at either tomorrow or Friday. We will vote it. Do what you have to do with that. Okay, great. Any other thoughts on this before we adjourn this day? We're going to continue to hear more bill introductions just to get issues on the table.