Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And we are starting with H932, and the Legislative Council up to the chair, we're just going to walk through the draft amendment to it. Know on the calendar it says a possible vote, but thinking that we should not actually vote it out today from at least one or two other people. So we're going to not plan to vote it today, but just so that when you've got a new draft that people can react to the most recent draft, somebody turn it over to the legislative council. LLJC passed the Office of Legislative Council, H. 32, an act relating to Regulation of Foresiator Act of August. Today I have draft 1.1 of an amendment for you. It's based on the testimony we received yesterday from the Land Use Review Board. This is their proposed language for Subdivision F. So this is just amending subdivision F in section one. So we're in 10 ASA 6,001, the definition section of Act two fifty, but it's also the section that establishes a lot of the jurisdictional parameters for Act two fifty. So Subdivision F is being added in H-nine 32, and the land use to be born has proposed a couple of small changes to it. So page one of the amendment, line eight. When development is proposed to occur on a parcel or tract of land that is devoted to logging and forestry, only those portions of the parcel or the tract that support the development, but is subject to regulation under this chapter. Permits issued under this chapter shall not impose conditions on, apply to, restrict, or conflict with the acceptable management practices for maintaining water quality and logging jobs in Vermont, on other portions of the parcel or tract of land that do not support the development. Okay. Two questions. Thank you. Is the italics actually gonna be in the statute? Yes. That is super helpful. Thank you for that. It makes it more clear that it's a- And my other question, and I asked this because couple of weeks ago, I got a question from a Christmas tree farm, and I'm assuming they are not considered forestry. Is that correct? Is that considered agriculture? Yes, Christmas tree farms do fall under the definition of farming. That's what I thought. Okay. As does other kinds of farming in the woods kind of things. Yes. Like maple? Yes. I didn't even think about that. I was thinking of like, there are other mushrooms and things like that. I don't know, sorry. But yes, maple, of course. Okay. Yes. And farming in the phone exemptions, are very similar to this. So I have subsection F is mirroring language that's in subsection E that you can't see. It's in the ellipses. So yes, it's trying to create provisions that are directly related to forming the glyphosate forestry. Got it. Thanks. Great. Okay. Any other questions on this? No. Okay. Fantastic. Okay, so we are going to plan to vote that out next week, sometime, a little bit more testimony. I think you can just roll right into the next thing, which is page seven ten, which we did do a walk before it even came over. So we I think you have it, but I may love it. Oh, you know what? He told us have it. Oh, okay. Who knows? Okay, maybe we did not achieve it. I know we just intensively talked about it. Yeah. In the very least. I don't think I have that in here. Okay. I have a copy of it, but I don't know why. Anyone else want a bigger copy of this? Okay. All right, so H710, entirely different topic. This is an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities. So last year in the 25 kilowatt solar bill, you also included a directive to the Public Utility Commission to review the definition of a plant that is used in Title 30, Chapter 89. Chapter 89 is the Renewable Energy Programs chapter, and it establishes the requirements for the renewable energy programs. So we're just talking about renewable energy here. And this definition is used quite a bit, including in the Net Metering Program, the Standard Aqua Program, as well as the Tier two eligible projects. So there was discussion last year about whether or not the definition should be updated. You directed the PC to hold a stakeholder process to get a consensus update on what the definition should be, and this came out as a report that they issued in the fall office. Yes. Tier two? Yes, so tier two of the rural energy standards. Yes, I asked repeatedly during the Equity one process that we now call it TEARS. Because we have TIERS already for the renewable energy standard program. We're talking about tier two of the renewable energy standard, which is about distributed renewable generation, which has a cap on it. So all of those programs that I just mentioned have caps on it, which is why a clear definition is important because you need to determine whether or someone should have eligibility for a program because there's a cap on the size of the project. So what this bill does is it amends directly the definition of plant, and then at the end there are four definitions being added to explain further the terms that are

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: used in this definition

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: of plant. So on page one of H710 as passed by this house. Oh, and then had Chihuahua. This bill came from the house. It was in Senate Finance for a little while. Senate Finance is like, relief of that bill. And now it's here, and they did not make any changes to H710 as they came over from the house. So there's nothing from that that you're missing. So definition of plant, which means an independent technical facility that generates electricity for renewable energy. Then it's shrinking up the language of what the definition currently requires, which is that you review a number of factors to determine if multiple facilities near each other are considered one plant or multiple And that's why this bill has been referred to as a single plant bill. It's defining the line between when something is multiple projects or just one. So it strikes the factor consideration entry as sort of a break line test. The new language starting on line 14: Multiple electricity generating facilities, regardless of when each is constructed, shall be considered what plant if the facilities use the same electricity generating technology and are located on the same parcel or contiguous parcels of land. Such facilities shall only be considered separate plants if they need one of the following exceptions. So it's creating the default provision, which is that multiple facilities that use the same electricity generating technology, if they're on the same parcel or adjacent, so next to each other or on the same parcel, regardless of when in time they're created, The default position is that that is one plant. However, the bill then goes on to create three exceptions to that rule, where things next to each other would be considered multiple plants. The first type of exception is for individual net metering and self exception, and I think this is probably the easiest one to picture. This applies if, and if we go on to page two, if the facilities are not located on the same parcel, are wired to offset consumption on separate billion meters, and supply different detailed customers. So if you picture two houses next to each other that each have solar panels on the roof, that would violate the default position of this definition because they would be using the same technology on parcels adjacent to each other. But that's basically how we have net metering throughout the state. So an exception is being created here, so even if on adjacent parcels, but they're just separate meters and for separate customers, they can be multiple plants under this exception. The second exception is similar, but it's for multi owner individual net metering on the same parcel. And so this applies if they're located on the same parcel of land where a common interest community is located, are wired to offset consumption on separate billion meters, and supply different regional customers. So this is about common interest communities. There is a definition at the bottom of this page, features identical to the definition of Title 27 in the property chapter. And common interest communities refer to mostly condominiums or homeowners association. So we're not talking about apartment buildings, we're talking about people who have ownership interest in a unit, but where multiple are located on the same property. And so if you have like a duplex condo or even more units than that but without the same parcel, and you have separate meters going to different customers, you may end up with separate net metering systems, but they're all in the same parcel. And so this exemption addresses that. And then there's the final exception. Exception is for co location of facilities other than at metering systems or standard offer program facilities. Wait, I'm sorry. I need to go back to B. Yeah. It's because I think my head was sort of swimming in the common community definition. So can kind go back to like what what B is about? Sure, do you want to, so the definition of common interest community is down at the bottom. So that's a real estate described in declaration with respect to which a person, by virtue of the person's ownership of a unit is obligated to pay or share realty taxes on insurance premiums, maintenance or improvement of, or services, or other expenses related to common elements of other units or other real

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: estate that the unit described in the declaration.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it's the same set of things as in A? Yes, except that. Talking about the same parcel. Right. Yes. But there may be multiple people on that one parcel, because they're in a HOA that need to have that metering systems. Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. I'm good. Thank you. Yes. And then, so the last exception, so colocation of facilities other than net metering program or standard offer program facilities. So first, I'll just start. Net metering, I think you all know a bit about. There's a cap of 500 kilowatts on the net metering program for systems. The standard offer program has a cap of 2.2 megawatts. And then there are other types of renewable programs that may take the form of a power purchase agreement with a utility or with another entity that would fall under potentially the tier two qualification. So tier two renewable energy standard requires utilities to have electricity come from distributed renewable sources, which are defined as small, local, and newer. And so those, the cap on the systems there is five GW. All of those systems have a cap, and so that's why determining multiple systems on the same or adjacent parcel is important. So for this exception, it applies if the facilities have separate points of interconnection, if a naphthenia ring facility and a standard offer program facility are not cited on the same or contiguous parcel. So for the purposes of this definition, a net metering system cannot be with a standard offer program system, vice versa. But net metering system could be cited next to a net metering system, standard offer next to standard offers, or net metering and tier two, standard offer tier two, tier two and tier two, but net metering and standard offer under this cannot be cited together. Wait can you say that last sentence again? What cannot be cited together? Net metering and standard offer.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Thank you for that explanation. That is a very clear way of saying it. All these iterations. I agree. Net and standard offer cannot be studied together. Thank you. Yes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the statutory cap for the net metering program for the standard auto program is not exceeded on the same partial or contiguous parcels. So if you're going to cite a net metering system next to a net metering system and consider that multiple systems, they cannot exceed the cap or net metering. And then the same is true for standard offer. Okay, okay. We'll wait a second. So if they're

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So if I've got two net metering sites next to each other combined, they cannot exceed 500 kilowatts. Correct. Okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: and 500 kilowatts is the the net metering. That meter is mass.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm a bit confused. So to recap, my net rating program, the first part makes us need, we can't be more than 500 kilowatts or the standard offer is not exceeded on the same parcel, contiguous parcels. So which one applies? So that was 2.2. 2.2. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You have two standard, well you have two standard offers next to each other combined they cannot exceed

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: two points. Oh okay, thank you. 2.2 is the standard offer?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's the standard offer max. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Two points. I'm sorry. I don't want say I was like, my seat sheet

[Gwen Zakov (Vermont Forest Products Association)]: does not understand

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: this. Sorry, so, and I'm recalling the visuals that we saw a long time ago, I feel like I need to go refresh my memory on that because it'd be better to be helpful. Okay, right. This these here and it was color coded even. So

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: can I ask you a question, so let's say you have a tier two sited next to net metering project, tier two maximum is five megs, net metering maximum is half a meg, is the maximum for that five and a half megs? How does that?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because they're not under the same statutory cap, only the relevant cap for each.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So they

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: have to live within their own word. Okay, got it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the first part of it means they can't be next to each other or they can't be cited together.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: But that's right, can be considered cited so wouldn't matter.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, if only net metering and standard offer can be together. Right. The other types of projects could be considered higher. Right, so what to Senator Beck's question is there, we would never get the combined cap because they can't be next to each other. So isn't that what you were asking? That if you add?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, if you had a tier two adjacent to a net metering, is that considered one site or two sites?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Two sites.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Two sites.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: They're multiples today with their own caps.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: They have their own caps, okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Should we keep going? Sure. So I just read you the common interest community definition by picture HOAs for condos. Then the bottom page, you're down to page three. And then here are the other terms that are used in this bill that I think are pretty easy to understand. So contiguously. So the definition of contiguous, so I think it's pretty intuitive, means sharing a property boundary with another parcel of land or being adjacent to that parcel of land, and the two parcels are separated only by road, recreation path, rail line, street, or river. Electricity generating technology may become a method or system used to convert energy from one form into electric power, including wind, hydropower, water, solar, or biomass. Point of interconnection means the point of the interconnecting utility's existing distribution system to which a facility proposes to interconnect. And effective date is 07/01/2026. Okay. I have a couple of questions. I know that we're going to be seeing some proposed language around decommissioning. So I imagine we may not be just concurring with this, but I'm curious, this is just a, there's nothing question, but in the common interest community, you mentioned that it's the same as in the property chapter. Yeah. So what are your thoughts on whether it's better to have your own definition here or just reference the other definition? So generally we like to include a cross reference. I do think that would help. However, this is a pretty different type of definition than the rest of Title III. So I do think, at least for discussion purposes here, it's good to see the definition of what is being discussed, because you really are talking

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: about ownership interests as opposed to an apartment.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So if you'd like to have a cross reference here, you can. Okay. I mean, for what it's worth, tend to prefer cross references rather than, but it's, we do it or not, we can talk about that. Yes, ahead.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So if we were to adopt this language for men's, would the problem always solve it?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, well, I think that there are people who can describe some specific situations for you. However, last year towards the end of the session, probably like right around this time, House Energy received testimony that there have been, under the existing definition of plans, it's a factors test. And so the PUC looks at, to determine whether or not something is one or two, they look at if they're sharing common equipment and infrastructure, such as roads, poles, different things like that. And so there was concern raised that some developers are to avoid the factor test adding additional infrastructure, which is perhaps saving up additional land. And so by not having those factors here, it's a land use efficiency. It's also cheaper for the developers if we don't have to put in a whole set

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: of separate infrastructure. Okay, that second question, I realize this is happening all over the state but Bennington is kind of a flashpoint right now from what I understand, there's a lot of litigation going on down there if we do this how does that layer in with all the litigation that's going on down there maybe in other parts of the state?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So this is a common question that you all have to deal with every day for other bills too, So this bill is prospective. If you were to pass it, it takes effect on 07/01/2026 and is

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: moving forward, it's not retroactive.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any decisions that have already been made or that are being litigated would not be using this definition as you would change it because they're operating under the existing definition. Are there ways that it could continue litigation or later litigations? Maybe. This definition has been litigated previously in prior cases, and so it is a pretty complicated issue. And I do think this language would attempt to be more clear and have less risk of litigation because that's pretty straightforward. It is difficult for me to weigh in when, I get to really speculate that it will change or lead to Well, your I want to focus on that last point you just made that I have a hypothesis that I just want to run by you, which is that, well, so my hypothesis is that where the law is unclear or ambiguous, it is perhaps more apt to draw litigation versus if it's clear, it is less likely. Is that a general, how do you feel about that hypothesis? It's not a hypothesis of Yes. I mean, if you don't want to, you don't have to, I'm just going to put that out there, that that's a hypothesis. Sorry, the purpose of the Office of Legislative Council is to ensure on your behalf that the laws that you are creating are as clear as possible so that people know how to follow them, and litigation is the result of people not being able to solve a dispute. However, there are sometimes people who are litigious. And so you can plan as best as want to make the statute as clear as possible, and that should be the goal. You cannot always predict if someone is going to sue as a result. Sometimes you can. But I see it again. Okay. Yes. I'm still reading C because it's still real hard for me to understand. So I, it, it, what I wrote down is that for a little eye, net metering and standard offer can't be cited together. But this is The exception applies if the facilities are not sited on the same parcel. So it's an exception to the colocation. It's an exception to the separate plant if they are, I'm having a hard time with this third one. Yes, I also think the third one is confusing. The default under this proposal is that if they're next to each other and they have the same technology, they are one plant. Okay. This is saying though, if they are not net metering and standard offer and they're under the cap, they could be separate facilities, not one plant. Fair.

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: They're not

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, I still have to think about that.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Say that again.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, if they're not net metering or standard offer adjacent to each other, because that's not allowed, and then they are under the statutory cap, they can be considered multiple in place. So a kilowatt two metering system had to be sited next to a 300 kilowatt system And be considered separate facilities. Otherwise, the one that was there maybe earlier in time would then need to consider the next one, part of its facility and update, go through the update process for their CVG. But this says this is an exception for things other than that mirroring and standard offer. And I says that, is talking about metbuteric and standard offer, and they're, I feel like I need to hit you over this one because I don't quite understand this. So it is also talking about this third main category, co location of other programs when it's not being raised in an author. So, Anne will just say, I also think this could be written more clearly. I do not, this is the language of the D. C. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So, you say this language, which language you talked about?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: All of it. Under C. Yeah, Senator Beck, you're

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, so Ellen, if you have a 200 kilowatt net metering site and they want to develop a net metering site next to it that's 400 kilowatts. They can't be considered the same site because they would see 500.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Under this, so they would be considered the same plant and they would need to go through the update to get an update to their CPG, which they might not be able to get.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Because it's over 500?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So in order to avoid that, let's say the CPG comes back to us no, to avoid that, would they just have to have separate transmission equipment?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: They would have to have less panels. They'd have

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: to bring it down to both 500? Yes. Because they there's no way they can avoid that sink to site. They just have to be less than 500?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Unless you don't change this a lot. If you don't change it Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay. And if it's two if it's parcels next door next to each other, which is the other one, gotta then what?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Say ownership is not taken into account in this.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: it really is just physical proximity. Physical proximity. Okay.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So the second owner coming in only gets what's left over.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Potentially.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And he's continuous. Yes. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So some of this is a policy decision for you. If you have an issue with COVID, the policy is being trained by the DUC. This is you as the body asked them for recommendation based on conversation with stakeholders. They have presented that this is the agreement that was made in that stakeholder process. But if the legislature had different policy ideas, we could consider that. Well, we can hear more about that. My brain is actually still also with Sir Hardy in terms of like, is this word in a way that makes it clear enough? Yeah, I don't think it makes sense. So to that end, you know, we'd love to have some further conversation about, is there a way to clarify what we need? Especially if all the parties have agreed on the policy, I'm not interested necessarily, I mean, I'm open to disagreeing that, but I'm less apt to disagree that if everybody's on board, I just wanna make sure it's

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Go ahead. I would see maybe some clarifying language if if there's some available. Mhmm. It might simplify

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: it. I think that's something we can talk more about. Like like, Okay. Anything else? No.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You? I know that you're the best person, not a policy person, but the question. You did answer it. Let's answer it again. What's the What problem? Well,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: we can also ask that of other people as well, but

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'll keep asking.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, and I want to be careful of framing what happened last year. It is my recollection last year that concerns were raised that under the current definition of plant, it's a factor. There's a set of factors that the PUC reviews. And some, potentially some developers were really trying to avoid going through that factor test by adding, clearly trying to indicate that there were separate infrastructure for projects. So having, adding additional roads, adding additional poles and additional things that potentially were making it sprawl esque.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So theoretically ending up with two five hundred, the websites right next to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: each other. Right next to each other and then they have separate rows and separate pools. There could be more efficiency out of the land use.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: This will then allow for shared assets. Yes. And

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: if I'm not mistaken, there's a motivation to have more solar so Oh, right, which is potentially additional costs for the developer driving project costs up and or taking up more space where other solar could be stable.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And yet this lowers the potential that's what we're talking about, that metering down to 500, whereas previously, theoretically, it had been $505,100.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Maybe. I think a thing to remember is that anytime you put a cap in statute, people are going to try to find ways to get around that calf, not exceed that calf to the most of their abilities. And so I think there may have been some creative things that were maybe not the most efficient use of it. I know, I don't know. And

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: this is for a PNC project, guess. Is it also the case that this was the way it did when we didn't necessarily want too much power centered in one place that we could up the amount of power to send in one place that did naturally hit the button. Is that part of this or not? No. Okay. I'm seeing no. Okay. Alright. Okay. Trying to figure it out.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well, we are definitely going need to hear more about this. Unless there's other questions, I think you're not taking testimony today. You're not taking more Well, testimony I'm assuming we're going hear from the people who are sitting behind me. Indeed. If you can help me understand C or bring us a clearer language, so it's really helpful. That would be great. Yeah. Okay, super, thank you. So not on our otherwise scheduled program. We're going go back to 09:32 because Mr. Duran materialized. So thank you for materializing. And we may even hear from Gwen Thackoff who is listening. So she may zoom in. Welcome. Yes. Right. On short notice, here you are.

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yeah, just filming, so there. That's great.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we have this, I don't know if you had a chance to see, we had some new language. So what are your thoughts on this or the rest of the bill?

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: The rest of page nine thirty two, so for the record my name is Dan Moran, executive director of professional logging contractors in the Northeast, we represent timber harvesting and hauling contractors here in the state of Vermont. I actually am here because the logging expo is up in Essex Junction starts today and tomorrow, so we have a presence up there but I need to, and I've also been in the state since Tuesday night because we had safety trainings down in Westminster for our members in Lindenville yesterday, so this is Vermont, so anyway, just actually work and I saw that we were actually, you had 09:32 on your agenda, so I plan on being in the building, so there I am symbiotic. So I testified on this bill as did Sam Lincoln from Lincoln Timber Timber Harvesting when it was in the House Ag Committee, it was back in late January early February that obviously became a committee bill and is now before this committee for review. So we are strongly and supportive of the bill and changes that have been made specifically, know we are very impressed by the work that the LERB has brought forward, the work that they've done with FPR, I think it's created a really positive dialogue amongst a lot of different stakeholders as to the issues, This all as you've heard this kind of resurrected itself after a Act 181 wood products manufacturers report that was conducted with stakeholders last summer, Sam Lincoln from our membership was on that roof. There were two specific changes that came out of that. I mean, there was a list of nine, I believe, but there were two specific changes that we wanted to see move forward, which are products in this field. One is to clarify that four or three activities below 2,500 feet are indeed exempt, which provides parity with agriculture. I think this is something that has really been lacking clarity for a long, long time. It's created a lot of, I would call it chaos and confusion. You've probably heard about HB logging and the Kirby mulch facility. I don't know if that has come up in discussion. Heath Bongall invested $300,000 in an Act two fifty process that we're now hearing after the fact wasn't necessary. I think that has, that situations like that have been coming up over the years, which I think that this bill will clarify. So that was one of the recommendations. So that's in the bill before you. The second piece is around the confusion around log and pulp concentration yards. Those should be exempt from Act two fifty, there were the changes that took place with Act 181, which mischaracterized them, and so now it's providing clarity. The piece that's before the committee this morning that the LERB and FBR have agreed upon, we are also strongly in favor of, there are additional conversations and training that need to take place at VNR with respect to this language, and I'll kind of give you a layman's example on where this comes into play. So you could have a 100 acre parcel, 10 acres is under an Act two fifty permit for a commercial development, but let's say in that buffer area there is a street or a logging operation is going to take place on the 90 acres that's not under the permit, but they need to use the stream to cross to get to a landing which could be within the permitting area. Our belief has always been that that should be allowed because it has nothing to do with the permitted area and the AMPs that have to be employed in that stream processing, we would not be subject to act two fifteen permitting. So again, that's what I believe that yellow highlighted language that was brought forth. And again, it's been agreed upon with the PR, the LRRR, we're in agreement with it, but we think there's another step that is non statutory and that is there has to be some training in our staff and LERD to make sure that they understand these situations as they come up will not trigger an Act two fifty permit review. So again, that's outside of the purview of this bill and outside of purview of this language, but we know that there's been conversations taking place and that those will continue and could occur. So we are strongly in favor of three twenty five.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Zero. Cool, thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Two questions, the training and conversations will happen, you don't need us to say these should happen. You're confident that everybody's not bored with that?

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: For right now, I'm gonna provide a hall pass. Oh really? Okay.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I everybody understands. He's principal involved.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But my other question is the AMPs, my recollection from back when I was on that activity, those do cover how to safely cross streams without having sediment runoff, etcetera, when you're doing a logging operation or a logging job.

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yes, they do, but our concern throughout this entire process has been, again, it's gonna happen on a very small percentage of cases where you have an AMP situation that you have to follow where there's, again, I'll just use that buffer example where there's a stream that has to be crossed, the landing's gonna be on the permanent area, and we don't want that ANP process to then trigger an Act two fifty two. Right,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: right. I think this clarifies. Okay, cool, thanks. Yeah, okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: any other questions? Okay. Great. Super. Thank you. Okay, so now we're going go to who is joining us virtually. Welcome.

[Gwen Zakov (Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Hi, this is Gwen Zakoff on the VFPA. I don't need to add too much to what Dana had said just there. VFPA Where

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: are you

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: in? Sorry. The VFPA. What is the VFPA?

[Gwen Zakov (Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Vermont Forest Products Association.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Sorry. Thank you. Carry on.

[Gwen Zakov (Vermont Forest Products Association)]: So after the wood products manufacturers report was issued on 06/30/2025, the VFPA board of directors put together some priorities from that reports findings to move forward and ask the legislature to enact some of the provisions. What you see in September is several of the provisions that they put forward as priorities for this legislative session. And so we're really excited to see it get this far on, like all the provisions that Dana touched upon the log and pulp yards, the 2,500 feet clarity and law. And then in particular from our mills, smaller mills, our medium sized mills who are co located on land that is forested that they are under active forest management and sometimes under current use plans. Being really clear in law and creating parity with agriculture to make sure that when development occurs and if you saw mill is put up for example, that the entire parcel isn't brought into it because there have been instances even very recently in Randolph and Bethel where a sawmill that was co located on a very large parcel of land that was located on that's enrolled in current use was all the entirety of the parcel was included under Act two fifty. So when they were following their plan under current use to do a cutting on their land, they're having to seek an Act two fifty amendment, it just really doesn't make any sense. So, we see this as clarity in law, see it as bringing it in with the times and we're really supportive of the language, including the most recent changes that were brought forth by the LERB and FPR. They've been working really well together, and we're really happy that everyone's come together and come to a solution. We would appreciate the committee support.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Any questions for Ms. Seth? Okay, super. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Okay, we just lost Jude. I think we're going to end up staying a break, But otherwise, I think we So we could vote this out today. I want to pause on that question and at least wait till Jude gets back. Let's take a break until, so our next witness is in at ten. So, we're going to take a break at that point and then I think if we do vote it out, it will be probably, I would say after, well, sometime later this morning if we do just have a vote. Yes. So we'll we'll be in. Okay. So with that, we're gonna take a break. I'm gonna put us on mute. Okay. So we are do we have mister Shaw, the surgeon liaison? He accepted the invite. Here he is. Oh, okay, great. So before we go to our next witness, we are going to just vote out H932. Is there a motion to I move that we vote H932, find H932 favorable with an amendment, draft number 1.1, amendment.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That'll be good. It

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: looks like you're leaving. That's a bit, see? That is actually what section C of that bill was like. It's like, this is an exception except for it's not an exception. Was that it is leaving and some reason not leaving. Thank you. So you're saying, yes, I just answered with view of that. I'm surrounded by a giraffe one quick one. Okay, great. Clerk is ready. Okay. Go ahead.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So hospital nine thirty two, favorable, motion is favorable within limit traffic 1.1. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Ballard? Yes. Senator Murphy? Yes. Senator Williams? We did

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a Senator Watson? Yes. Okay, 5000. Report. Oh, I'll report it. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Senator. That's great. Okay. We're going to move back to data centers, age seven to 27. And our next witness is Mr. Jir Shah. And I'm so grateful, thank you. So grateful that he was able to join us this morning. And just by way of a little bit of an introduction, so he's got an incredibly impressive bio, but just to keep it short, I'll just say that under the Biden administration, he ran the Department of Energy's loan program and was responsible for deploying billions in financing for clean energy and climate. So welcome, Mr. Shah. Thank you for joining us.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Thanks for having me. Did you want me to make an opening statement of any sort, or did you want to just go straight into Q and A?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think an opening statement would be welcome. And yeah, if you want to share your screen, you can. I'll

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: I don't have any slides, so I'll just make it verbal.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, great.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Thank you, Senator Watson. And members of the committee, my name is Sugar Shaw. I've spent my career working at the intersection of energy, finance, and infrastructure as a founder of Sun Edison, as a clean energy investor and entrepreneur, and as a policy advocate. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about Vermont's data center legislation. In terms of, you know, I submitted some testimony to Senator Watson for you guys to read it at your leisure, but just a couple of high points I just wanted to name. I'd say that the framework here, I think, is really the challenge that I think everyone is confused by. You know, if you go to your electric utilities broadly and say, are there places on the grid that we can use technology to identify that can handle, in Vermont's case, a 10 megawatt data center, a 20 megawatt data center, a 30 megawatt data center without substantial increases in investment, the answer is yes. I don't think the utilities actually know where those places are. I think they actually need some help from software companies like Gridcare or Google Tapestry or Camu Energy or others, but they can be compelled by the legislature to do that analysis and to find the places where they can put data centers in that would have relatively little additional investment required by the Public Service Commission to approve. The next piece is that when they identify those locations, they often don't have enough capacity there, eight thousand seven hundred and sixty hours a year. So normally what happens is they mostly have capacity there, but one hundred hours a year, there might be a problem. And so what all states are doing, including Texas, first and foremost, but also California, is moving to what you call an interruptible rate, which we've had for fifty years, so it's not new. But you basically say, you're approved to go here, but if, you know, a transmission line goes down, a distribution line goes down, a generator goes down that we weren't expecting, you're the first one to get curtailed, right? And that, I think, is a way to, again, save ratepayers the expense of gold plating and platinum plating the system to make sure that they can ride through those hundred hours. And then they would have to work with the utility, which is the third recommendation I would make, is that they would have to work with the utility to figure out what to do during those one hundred hours. So during those one hundred hours, in some states, putting in backup natural gas generation. I know that that's generally probably frowned upon in the state of Vermont. In other places, they're working with the utility to say, on that circuit that they're on, we could put batteries on commercial businesses and residential homes, just like Green Mountain Power did in the past, and instead of having the data center turned down for those one hundred hours, we'll turn down those commercial facilities or residential facilities by switching them to batteries, right? So the commercial facility and residential facility basically gets a free battery, and the data center gets to ride through those, you know, one hundred hours a year, right? And so win win for the community, right? You get a backup battery for yourself. And then once you've installed those batteries, as you can imagine, the New England Power Pool is short capacity, so you could bid that capacity, as Green Mountain Power has already been doing, into the New England Power Pool and make money for those folks and reduce rates even further. So the way that data center load growth reduces rates for everybody is by making the system that we already have paid for more efficient, right? Because the system you've already paid for is used about 50% of the time, and the other 50% of the time, it's highly underutilized. And so by adding the data centers intelligently into the grid, you increase utilization and could decrease bills for everybody by 5%. And so that's the goal, I think, of the recommendations I'm making. And so with that, I'll pause and take questions.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, just to know, there was a lot to chew on. We have a question over here. Yes, go ahead.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Did you say that by utilizing that 50% that says, don't know, the consumers only say 5%? What is you mean to I

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: mean, it could be bigger, but you guys already have, you know, a well run state. So if it was Massachusetts, I'd say probably 15% reduction in rates. But your utilization is already at a point where I think adding the data centers would reduce bills by probably like 5% if done smartly. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I have a bunch of questions, but thoughts, because this is very interesting. So you mentioned interruptible rates, or I guess I should say

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Tariff.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: A tariff, yeah. So is that is kind of a new idea for me. This is something that's common in other states, did you say?

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: And common in Vermont. Like in

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Vermont, okay.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: For fifty years, industrial loads have been put onto an interruptible rate. Right? And so this is not a new concept.

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Okay.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: But I think it is new for data centers because data centers largely came into being over the last twenty years when we've had a lot of excess capacity in the grid. And so they've been able to take up some of the excess capacity that's been freed up in the grid from closing coal plants, closing manufacturing plants, other things. And so even though interruptible tariffs are not new to the electricity system, it's new to data centers.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So. Okay. And so, yes,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: your experience operate that mic.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sphere is operate that mic. Okay. Okay. That's interesting. And, Okay, and that is not something that you're seeing in the draft bill right now? Or

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: It's not explicit enough in my recommendation. Like, think you hint at it, but I don't think you're really saying it explicitly, which I think is important to do given that like, I feel like everybody in this moment right now feels in the, at least in the government, is like accommodative to the data centers. And so I think if you're not explicit about it, then the government sort of says, well, you didn't explicitly say it, so I don't know that we have to impose that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay, so that is helpful. I want to go to your second point about the battery storage. Again, this is something that, as I was reading the bill, it feels like it's not called out specifically in the bill. Is that, that's also your understanding that we could or should be calling out more explicitly battery storage, virtual power plants. And actually just for context, I'm not sure that we in this room have talked about virtual power plants. Could you give us like a super brief definition of what that means?

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Yeah, so I think what's happened today versus, you know, ten years ago, is that when people put in Tesla Powerwalls, as has been done by Green Mountain Power, into multiple residential homes, you can now use software to orchestrate all of those batteries to run -in conjunction with the loading of the distribution substations, right? So each circuit can be managed so that it doesn't, you know, hit its peak and doesn't, you know, hurt the transformer. And you can operate multiple devices as one power plant using software, and this is now commonly used in Texas, right, and so you've seen NRG and base power and most recently Octopus Energy and others announce these deals in Texas. You commonly see this in Puerto Rico, where they've, you know, have tens of thousands of batteries that they use or orchestrate well. You've seen press releases out of National Grid and Massachusetts is doing exactly this to manage their distribution substation. So this is not novel, and the Department of Energy, when I left office in January 2025, published an updated virtual power plant liftoff report that listed 75 case studies, including from Rocky Mountain Power in Salt Lake City and, you know, many, many, many places around the country. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shah. I was just looking at your written testimony on our website. You guys should definitely look at it. It's really quite good. And I'm really happy to see in your section that you say precedent, other states are moving, that normalize what is Vermont's considering here, because there's sometimes a concern that these requirements will drive investment elsewhere. And then you say, but that is not the case, that a well regulated approach actually could bring investment in and make it so that it is beneficial to ratepayers. And I appreciate that, and I wonder if you could say a little bit more about that.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Yeah, I think that where the data center companies are today is less about regulation and more about rules of the road, right? What they really want to know is what are the rules for working in Vermont? And if we meet these rules, will you give us permission to operate? And I think that, you know, I think if you set those rules clearly, that actually drives investment into the state of Vermont, because people want, like in general, what we're asking them to do, just to be clear, is less than 1% of the budget of the data center. So this is not something that's breaking the bank for them. What they wanna do is they wanna know that if we follow these rules, are you gonna say yes, or are you gonna change the goalposts on us later? And I think, hopefully the legislation is written in a way that says, if you follow these rules, you're welcome to come into the state.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, seems like, especially these days, everybody just wants predictability.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: That is the understatement of the day.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you. I mean, for the other points that you make in your testimony, I guess I would need to understand where in the bill and how in the bill we would insert these things, because they all seem like very reasonable and good ideas.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Yeah, and I've certainly talked to Adam and Ben, you know, and I think you have tremendous resources within the state to be able to help you with the technical assistance around exactly how to change the bill to reflect my testimony.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, thank you. I'm wondering about, as I, your fourth recommendation, restricting the use of fossil back generation. When we did hear some testimony previously about that for some places they just have these jet engines that are powering them. So, I'm just reading this sentence here. The master of nostalgia clear rules that backup generation is backup used only during time during genuine interruptions of service. Does that, I'm wondering if you could say a little more about that.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: So as all of you, I'm sure, remember very clearly, when we had the polar vortex, you know, several months ago, the New England Power Pole ran on oil for 40 to 50% of its entire grid, right? And so, so we are not preventing the backup diesel generators from running when a situation like that occurs, right? But if the utility signs an interruptible tariff with the data center and says, we have a localized peak that's occurring, you have to turn down by 80% or 50%, they can't use the diesel generators for that incident, right? They really have to use it for when the New England Power Pool says that we have an emergency across the Power Pool, right? They can't say, in order to more cleanly sort of fit into the existing infrastructure of Vermont, we wanna use diesels to do that. That we think is, you know, not consistent with what backup generators are for.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So in that situation, if they're not the emergency that is happening across grid, if there's this like interruption or there's a peak where there's, you know, potentially going to be a problem there, is that where you would envision the virtual power plant kicking in? That's right. Being the thing that ties them over.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: That's right, and I think it has this double duty of investing in the community. And so it helps to get more community support for the data center because they're getting, you know, like the vibe that the data centers actually care about the community, right? And care about the circuit and their impact of the circuit, right? So I think it plays that other role.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, and it's helpful to them in other ways. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm sorry, I'm that I'm just going through your document now here, but this is-

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: No, that's okay. I totally said it this morning, so I appreciate your grace.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, no worries. So I do also want to go to this load shedding requirement. And so how is load shedding? I guess I'm starting to see all of these requirements as sort of fitting together.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: They do.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. And so because the load So just one, I think you did speak to this, one more time, you could speak to the load shedding aspects a little bit further. I apologize, thank you.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: No, no, I think it's a good question. And these words, I think sometimes like all sound exactly the same because they kind of are, right, to the, you know, to the Vermont public. But I think in the electricity regulation world, there's like there's distinctions between the the three. Right? So, you know, the the the the topic we were talking about before was really around just how the utility manages its grid day to day, right? And sometimes the circuit gets overloaded because something happens, right? The grid is one of the most extraordinary inventions of the twentieth century, according to the National Academy of Sciences, and there are thousands of things on the grid interacting, right? And sometimes those things have unexpected maintenance. And so when that occurs, right, then the utility is expected to manage through those unexpected maintenance. That's the N minus one framework. And so that is what occurs, right? So that's what we were talking about before. What we're talking about now is when something occurs like, you know, this doesn't often happen in Vermont, but like, if it was a 100 degrees for a week and everyone's air conditioners were on, and you were basically hitting a peak that was unexpected, right, for a variety of reasons, that would be more of a load shedding event, still, like not an emergency event, right? And so, in Texas, they passed a law, SB6, that says that when those events occur, the data centers go down first, right? It's not the hospital, it's not like this community, it's not this other thing, it's the data centers, right? They get turned down first.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and that does, I know for sure that already happened in Vermont to a certain degree. I mean, Just curious. In my town, the biggest user of energy is probably Middlebury College. And they are often asked, can you shut down these things during a week? Because the crib meets the generation. Well, I wonder if that happens automatically or if they, like if they have some agreement where they can just shut them down. No, they have to ask. Mean, Green Mountain Power should be able to explain how it works. Okay. Okay. You know, I I would like to know more about that. Yeah, Great.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: But generally speaking, I would suggest to you that that is likely an unspoken partnership that Green Mountain Power has with Middlebury College. I'm fairly sure they're not on an interruptible.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I think you're right. I think it's say call and say, can we, and then there's like an all that goes out and people are asked to shut down things. Right. You're right. It's probably more informal than actual.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: Yeah. And I think that here we're saying, we're gonna accommodate you, you need to make this formal.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That's a good point. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Scott, yes, go ahead. Just

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: one of the things I think about is, if we have the medical data set, or something, but if we were to, they end up taking up that excess capacity to grid and then does it put us in a position of not having enough excess capacity, we have to spend the money to build the capacity that we already have.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: It's a great point and one that, you know, I don't know that I can answer for you well. Look, I think that it is always the case that, you know, that excess capacity can be used for any number of purposes, including new manufacturing and other things in the state of Vermont. I think that from an economic development standpoint, when you bring a data center into the state, right, they are providing pretty healthy property tax income. They're providing construction jobs, largely union construction jobs during the construction. And I think they will reduce bills if done correctly by 5% for everybody all year round, which is a lot of money that goes in the pockets of consumers that they can spend. But you are absolutely right that, you know, if you want to then increase the overall capacity of the grid within Vermont, I would suggest you separately, like have a seven year plan to actually increase the grid, right? Like, so you reconductor some of the transmission lines with advanced materials, you install grid enhancing technologies, you do all sorts of things to then restore some of that cushion so that more loads can come in in the future for economic development purposes. But I would suggest to you that data centers are very unique in the fact that they use power almost all year round, whereas a lot of manufacturing loads and others are fairly interruptible. They generally work nine to five, etcetera, etcetera. And so so one of the reasons why data centers are interesting is as we've deindustrialized as a country, right, in the 80s and 90s and 2000s, our grid has become more underutilized. Our grid was 70% utilized in the 1970s, and we've gone down to, in California, down to 35% utilization of the grid, right? So that has caused, you know, much higher rates for people. And so I think data centers are a unique tool by which to solve grid utilization.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wow, that is really, I've never heard of that stuff before. That is really interesting. Super interesting. Okay, any other thoughts or questions? Thank you so much for joining us, really grateful, and a lot to chew on here as we move forward.

[Jigar Shah (Former Director, U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office)]: My pleasure. Thanks for having me testify, and thanks for all your leadership on this topic.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay, keeping on that same topic, we have our legislative council here, and love to welcome you to the table. And the goal at this moment is to start thinking through how we might want to amend this draft, and actually, given what we just heard, I'm very interested in the ideas that we just talked through, and I feel like I need to like just asterisk where they might go in this bill. It's, you know, see if others are interested in them as well. But that's, you know. And which draft are we looking at? So I think we should, we had draft 1.5, which was from the house, but we should, I don't know if, Judy, don't know if we have, that has passed by the house version of the- That's what's on the list. Okay. So that's what's the list. Okay. It's the same as the 1.5 draft. But regardless, so just so you all know how I am thinking about this, I want to sort of chunk, Well, there's, as I recall, there's different lawyers with different parts. So, assume one of the things that we'll need to do, I think, in order to make sense is we'll walk through different parts with the different lawyers as we get there. But to make this digestible, well, just so you know, I mean, there were definitely some things that caught my attention as we were walking through this, or as we heard testimony and I guess let's just flag things as we get to the different sections. Does that make sense? So I've got a couple of suggestions that I'm interested in And we can talk about it as we get there. Which I need to spend. There's so much. There's a lot to digest here. Okay. So let's just start walking through it. Okay. And if you have questions or concerns, flag them as we go. Yes. So Yes. Maria Or Ryle with legislative council. So we started with draft 1.5 because you started reviewing it before you and you like got the bill. Yeah. So, but subsequently it's the same. So right now, I'm looking at how it's passed by house. So whichever you have in front of you is fine. So we'll start walking through it again. And do you want me to share my screen and pull it up? Or are you comfortable with seeing it? Yes, I need to. We're all in the bed. Okay, good. So, the first section is the new sub chapter in title 30, and this deals primarily with the service entity contract between the utility, the distribution utility, the data center, as well as some other additional requirements, generally what we've seen by the PUC. And then the later sections have to do with FACT two fifty water use, then some work order. So anything to do with the energy or the electric grid is you? Correct. Correct. Yes, as you know, Ellen generally handles I-two fifty, energy policy, renewable energy. I know she's super busy. So some of the stuff I can kind of walk through generally. Okay. These notes for her, she's been, I've been keeping her in COVID. Mine go very easy notice water. Yeah. A lot of that's very technical. I have been talking with him, familiar with some of the issues, so we can, and he knows to come here if he can. He had a, he had a hospital for a little bit, so he may go to the. Okay, so we'll start with TUC the oversight provisions, just a short title. How detailed do you want me to be? I mean, do you want me to read the circumspection? Do assume that that's okay or what? You know, I'm think it's most in, well, I'm interested in detail. Let's Okay. Get other people approve it further. Finish this thing. Yeah, we haven't. This is true. Let's do it. Okay. So, page one, line five, new sub chapter title 30, line six, the short title. This sub chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act. Line nine, section two eighty two is the purpose actually. 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 rate data from unwarranted problems, promotes sustainable climate, environmental community and equity outcomes consistent state policies. I'm going flag something here, which is like a theme for me, which is this idea of unwarranted costs. Based on actually what we just heard from Mr. Shah, I actually kind of want to go further than this to say it's not just protecting us from unwarranted costs, but that I would hope that ultimately it could actually drive down costs if it's using the electric grid in a more efficient way.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: John Power has testified that these could be leveraged after reduced risk.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, right, that's what we just heard also. Yes, so yeah. I actually find the use of the word unwarranted costs problematic because that means that you could have warranted costs yeah, and- so it's costing you more too bad.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It costs that are unique to the data center.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Look, fits in a that lowers costs for electric ratepayers. That's I think that should be the goal. So Yes.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: If we go through this, there's some way that, like, you know, we talk about boundaries. Mhmm. Is that something that we could add to it? It's There's a detail. Think we should What way to say it's not a thing, but use existing Well,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think we should talk more about batteries. I think this first section, once we get to the large loads, there's a lot to talk about and that's part of it. For Yeah. Okay. So you have something to say? Well,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: at this rate will be on the first page for however.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's okay.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: The purpose of this subchapter is to establish a regulatory framework that ensures response on the globe. That's conclusory. I really just saying establish a regulatory framework to for the purpose of regulating and working against being a matter of that because that's it's what comes after that that actually matters. So I would just say something like establish a regulatory framework for an industry. Yeah. So I just see. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: In a manner that protects existing electric repairs. I get that sentiment, but again, I want to go farther. And you were suggesting Senator Hardy lowers costs for existing electric rate payers. Is costs the right rate for all other rate payers? Well, I am thinking about, I have a proposal that might go beyond electric rates, and so I'd be more comfortable with costs at this point, they'll happy to go back.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Mean, if we could just hang on to our current rates, that would be phenomenal. I mean, reduce rates, but I mean, because That's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a good point. So either increase, I hope we'll be. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's good. Unwarranted with addition.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Protects cost. Yeah, so protects electric vehicles from additional costs. Yeah. Does that, what do you think of that sort thing? Protects, are you saying keeping or forgiving? Protects existing ratepayers from additional costs and because I still think getting to the point of lowering rates is important. So, savings. Are you paying for all Vermonters or you have to just figure like beyond electric? Well, is like, yeah. Well, think lowering additional costs is broad because that's cost, talking about all costs and you and I gave the other And then something about lowering rates too, because I mean, yeah, think it's, should be a goal that we can lower the rates. Mean, can we, I'm hearing, hearing you Senator Beck about like maintaining would also be great.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It would be better. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But if we can lower them, that's even better. So putting it in aspiration. Yes, because this is just the purpose of what we're trying to do. Maria, how's that sounding to you? Do you think you can figure? I feel like we're talking about a lot of different Well, no, margin, it's just the rates for costs. What's the broader cost saving? Not rates, just so I know. Let's go cost saving or costs, broadly speaking, for now, I think it's good.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Quickly just say, we know what benefits existing electric ratepayers in remote sustainably,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: instead of our tax. Yes, right. So that's better than SASS, well. The benefits. You should have a pencil.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Benefits existing electric rate payers and promotes sustainable. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Benefits existing electric rate payers and the most sustainable plan. Right. As long as we are clear, my only hesitation about benefits is like, I want it to be clear that that means staff or better. You know what I mean? Seth, that we're ideally- Substantially benefits. As long as we just, you know, like give out stickers on the day they open. Right, right, right. Much as I love stickers, that's not enough. And now we know the end of such a gift. There's center of eight movie stairs. Anyway, sorry. Sorry. So, what are you thinking about that? It's wrong. So financially benefits? Sure. Okay. Yeah. So, it would read the purpose of this subject is to establish a regulatory framework for an emerging industry in a manner that financially benefits existing electric ratepayers can promote sustainable. Beautiful. Okay. Wow, group editing. Great. Well, we've ended there. Let's get going. Okay. This is why I like the details. Let's get into it. Yes. So the definition first is of data center, this is the 20 megawatt threshold. Okay, I just want to flag, is 20 megawatts the right number or should we go 10?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I know think And it's usually 20, is that right? I don't know. Remember that from testing?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that might be, I think that's right. But it was like South Dakota. South Dakota is about 10. New York or South Dakota?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I mean, we've already made some bigger than one on that right now.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: maybe. So if I understood correctly, if I brought it down correctly, that the 20 megawatts is the same as 20,000 homes out of 20,000 homes. Yeah. That's a lot. Yeah. 10. 10. 10. Yep.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: 10. It's a good round number. Yeah. Yep.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Because you're always going to end up with a budget without caps all the time, regulatory abhorasity, we're gonna end

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: up with 19.9.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, right, right.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It's I do

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: think of, so sorry, you said like 20 megawatt would be 20,000 homes. So 10,000, presumably 10,000. And I feel like there's this, I have a threshold in my mind anyway, of like a 10,000 home or 10,000 person city, guess that's It's bigger than 20,000 homes. I mean, it's little bigger than Middlebury. Yeah. I mean, that's big. It's a little Vermont. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's see. Oh gosh, page two. Well,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: obviously you need to say testimony.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, no, that's fair. But it's the only way we're putting it out there. Yeah. Okay, so also, they're construction facility, building equipment structures, etc. Benning, she goes through that also to make sure that it's not all stationary items litigated on a single site or on continuous or adjacent sites that are owned or operated by the same person whereby any person that controls is controlled by or is under common controls. So, it's a facility that begins in to the definition of data center. Data center means facilities we need to work. I'm good with this. Good. Yep, okay. So, now we get into the Lauren Post Service Equity contract, which must be approved by the PAC on line five. Subsection A for the service of ensuring just and reasonable rates for all rate payer classes, mitigating the risks of financial exposure to electric participation with companies and their existing ratepayers. The data center can be served by an electric company pursuant to a large level of service and approved by the PUC. Okay, here, line nine, mitigating. Like I said, this is a theme for me in this bill, is like, if you're saying that you have to mitigate the risks, like some amount of risk is fine, but like, look, we made it better. Here's a sticker. Well, especially because we just said that it has to financially benefit. So this should be maybe put into the positive that it's ensuring adjusted reasonable to lower the risk. Yeah. And lowering the risk of financial. Yeah. Or eliminating the risk. Yeah. I guess

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, in this case, mitigating could actually be a good thing because we have the status quo, and then when the when the plan comes online, it mitigates the risk not of itself, but of of the system, that's actually good for me.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You know, so go ahead and But mitigating means to

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's what's the definition?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, right, right. Yeah. It's reducing and it, yeah. It's Yeah. Often used in granulations just because you can it's very hard to 100% ban a leap. Right. Like, making something illegal, but an actual value can't really. You can certainly stronger, right George? I will say I'm interested in stronger pain. Yeah, no, no, absolutely. Substantially mitigating. Low, I mean, if we can lower, lowering the risk is Anyway, happy to like, we probably should have more conversation about that, but just want to flag that as a word that I'm Insuring, I'm sure it's, you know, rich financial and social. Yeah. It's, It, as it is now, I'm worried that it's like, here's what the risk would have been and we made it 1% better. So we have mitigated it, which is like, that's not enough. So ensuring there is no risk of financial exposure? Well,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: because this is talking about, there is the issue of the plant producing financial exposure. That's not what the Senate is about. This is about financial exposure to the companies and the ratepayers. So the question is if the status quo is here and the plan comes online and financial risk goes here, that's a good thing.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, and so how do we describe that?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Litigate, precedent. Reducing. Reducing.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: What are they all Do they all mean the same thing? So we can say reducing relative to status quo. That's what you said.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's what I'm reading this.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. And that's not how I'm not sure that I'd be reading the same, but we could say I think you could say mitigating relative success.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's what I'm saying.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Go ahead.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Way back for GMP.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: When you did

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: say something like reducing to the greatest extent feasible. It puts, you know, just on you're trying to get that down. Mhmm. I also just wanna say for the record that, you know, the large load contract is gonna be negotiated between the first utility and the potential data center. The utility has the best interest in mitigating to the risk side possible. That option, I I did listen to some of your earlier description. The pace of my travel up to the sea house increased. I do think in the context of the conversation around eliminating any costs or lowering costs, remember that there are a whole list of inputs that go into, like, determine electric rates. There's inflationary pressures. There's other regulatory allegations. And so it's it can be very challenging to sort of put the onus on one particular class of rate payers. There's a farming that would pay decreases rates. I mean, if you have inflation 1%, right, I mean, think about what one rate payer would be responsible for to counteract and then reduce There are other ways I think you have to get us safe in developing language and trying to use those.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yes. Well, that's why I like substantially mitigating, because mitigating is a word that is used legally a lot. And if we're talking about more than just a little bit, you guys are the worst. Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's, think you say, that does not increase the risk of financial. Sure. So it does not increase. I like that. So it's at least, because that way you can account for the inflation and that's not, that's not on them. Like that kind of thing. But I'm sure we will hear more. Would you wanna would you like to say something?

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Ben, Beverly Walsh for deeper for the record. I wasn't planning on doing the from the, you know, gallery thing, but we're doing that all throughout. We're doing that. The the volume and stuff. The two here really speaks to the cost incurred as a result of data centers loaded. And so I would That's the place to suggest something that's supposed to be eliminated or something like suggested. Because we're we're talking in this particular subdivision about the cost specifically because the data center is being constructive. So I I think if I understand the community's goals, I'll say sort of the goal would be to constrain any additional costs as much as possible, and then by doing other things also bring benefit to reduce rates. Mhmm. And so it's a it seems to me a both end, but this one is really about the cost because of that kind of disease. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let's keep going. Other thoughts? Yeah, I mean, think what Ben is saying, the way I heard it anyway, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Ben, but is that the place to get into the details is actually in paragraph two down below, because that gets into the details of what the contract should be included, and that the mitigating risk up here doesn't need to be as specific. I think that's, so does it mean mitigating? Does not increase, yeah. Yes, right. And then we'll get to you and then, of course, okay, submitted in B1, 112. So these are all of the requirements for the contract. So the contract shall: one. Include 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 in the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of the pumpular density network. So this is one that I want to come back to, but think I might do that another time. I do have an idea for the contract. I'm not sure where to write what is to suggest it. So I guess it is sort of relative to this idea, but actually I'm going to hold on. Let's go through this and make it a time of you. Okay. Yes.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: As it reads, this section, putting aside what we made about it. Yeah. If your budget was if I okay with that section, I'd say yes. Mhmm. As it

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: As an idea. Okay. So we'll submit it in July 16. May not, like, mitigate. Would you want to say I don't know. Just for to flag it. I also don't like the word unwarranted. The only thing I'll say, and it doesn't have to be unwarranted, is that I think the point was to kind of then further define what's meant by unwarranted faults in this context. So including any electric generation distributed infrastructure incurred to meet the local requirements for the data center or blah blah blah. Because the data center is a cost plauser, they would be unwarranted for other rates. Does that make sense? Sure, like to predict. Incurred makes more sense to me than unwarranted. Again, I don't even know if warranted costs is some of Is it a burden? I don't know, sounds weird to me. Is a burden me though. Ensure that other ratepayer classes do not bear Yes, Loss attributed to a data center or qualified offer? Yes, Sure. I think any of that would work. Then pages three, line one, specify the duration of the contract and the date or the estimated date that the vendor company will begin to provide letter of service to the data center. Four, line four, probably the data center to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity usage, duration of the I apologize. Can we go back to the next? Sure. I have a note on this section about ISO New England and how the costs are split. I'm going to have to think about what my note means. I'm not sure. But why? What is your note? Somebody said it. Yeah. It says, how does this interact with isoniament and fall share? Question mark. Okay, that is more clear than my note. It says isoniament split question mark. What about for transmission? Regionally? Not sure if that gets to this. I don't know, I think this is just the retail cost. Yeah, I don't know that this was my thought. I think this was something somebody brought that up and will, I mean, you don't think it would interact with it? I've not seen it, but that doesn't mean there's something you know more than I do. Well, there was a The second sentence of this paragraph is including any electric generation that's separate, but distribution and transmission infrastructure. I mean, transmission infrastructure could be that which is governed by Velco or ISO New England. Does that make sense? Okay, so if there's new transmission in prescribed caused by power of equipment underneath the center, should the data center be responsible for that, or might there be some regional contribution? Now that I'm thinking about it, because there's some formula for how much we bear in terms of the need for transmission upgrades. So I think we need to understand how, if we're going to need to upgrade transmission infrastructure because of a data center, how does that interact with that formula? So maybe for the time being, have to say in a manner consistent with the regional formula for allocating transmission? Yes, yes, but also I mean, this does kind of go back to like, okay, by having this data center here, now have to upgrade this. And that is going to be on all rate payers to pay some percentage of it. So that does kind of get to like, you're causing rates to increase for everybody else because you had to upgrade this transmission infrastructure. We don't want that. We don't want that cost to be borne by. Right. We want a data center, say the Vermont allocation. Right. And then the rest of the region, whatever. Right. If, which I think this actually does, sorry, I'm going off a little bit on a tangent here, but I do think that this actually relates to something that Mr. Shah was saying about asking utilities, what do we get? Other distribution utilities wait on this, but to do some kind of analysis as to like, if we set the threshold at 10 megawatts, like where in the state could actually handle that? There's something, there's a, there's an interaction here with like the, the location restrictions to say, yeah, you could put one down at Vermont Yankee, that's fine. But we can't handle it in Northeast Kingdom or wherever, right? Like there's some ask about where these could go and then beyond that, if you're going to need transmission infrastructure upgrades, then that's going to be a data center.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, there are variable rates all over the same. Yeah. Depending on infrastructure, it's huge water.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It makes me wonder about, and I'm not sure what I'm about to say, but it makes me wonder about the possibility having, you know, asking utilities to do an analysis of possible locations. Anyway, happy to get more feedback on them.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, I've worked with a couple of very small data center projects and the first question they ask is where can you get them? Like they go to the utilities.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well sure they can act there but I think the larger thing is where the best place to cite them based on the infrastructure that our corporate has right now.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And that's what the utilities companies would tell.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, wonder if that analysis was sort of done ahead of time as a map, does that end up meaning that they Not a map. No map. That's weird. Let's do that here. Okay. Well, I'm just thinking like, does that end up ultimately attracting them? If somebody knew she could say like, oh, look, we already know that's where they could go.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I think they can pick up the phone and find out pretty quick.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So maybe this one's, okay, that's fine. I mean, I think we should ask. We should do that. We can have. Sounded like what from the testimony we just got, that it's not just to pick up the phone and ask, that there needs to be some upfront analysis or that that would need help. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I mean, I think the utilities there, like they know how much is available in every substation. They

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: already know. Yes. Go ahead.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I was gonna say, Greenmont Power, they did that with solar. So everybody jumps on a bandwagon and wanna put in, you know, bigger deals. That's good. Can't put it there because, you know, we just upgraded the substation. It won't accept Mhmm. That part of the Yeah. All accepted. You're But also getting that beyond just where it could work as having a state take a head rather than reacting to an application that would explode and turn the when the application goes in. Mhmm. That's quite ahead of time. Even before the back playing rather than after the back playing. Yeah. That's what we tend to do. Mhmm. Mitigation. I don't know if it's too much to get into that or not. Right. But

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well, open question. We don't have to decide right now. Yes. So you don't have to decide, but just think of the first need, there are a couple of planning documents that we did want to specifically think each utility does an integrated resource plan for three years. So if you wanted to say it's part of that plan, identify the detention site. I mean, they're just going to know the power. I don't know what I've seen, they're done a little bit with Futter or other resources. And then there's also a long range transition plan, but that looks out like twenty years ago, you've been incorporating the recommendation. There is a requirement that any data center is consistent with the existing plan, easily. But need make that more specific. Throwing out the plan. No, that's to know. Okay. Just going make that as a note to myself. But in any case, would love to have some language in this paragraph about the interaction with the ISO New England or, yeah, not that form of mine. There's the cost. Okay. This is going to take us a long time off of this guy. All right, let's keep going. So we're on board, ready? Obligate the data center to pay a minimum amount for a percentage based on the date. Are we defining that in this section? Project electricity usage for the duration of the contract, which are compliance to sub-eighteen-one. The contract, this is to ensure against, they don't go bankrupt and leave. They have to pay what the utilities are building for. So it's kind of a stranded cost. It's an ill fute. So they are under contract to pay them for the purpose. Did somebody merge you, Jason? No. Okay, great. And then five, include a reasonable charge for demand in excess of the data center's projected electricity demand at the time contract is entered into. So if it exceeds what it's projected to use, if there's some formula, how much they'll be charged. Six, include a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. There's some financial instrument, bond, whatever. There's additional security for the utilities and regulators. Seven, include provisions requiring implementation of demand side management operational measures for the purpose of maintaining road stability and efficiency, including demand response and flexible load management practices, such as load shifting, peak shading, and the use of distributed energy resources. And then at least in the house, the distributed energy resources could be battery storage or on-site storage in the home of the yard. Well, is this where we would want to include things about the battery? Load shedding and that kind of thing with them, and battery backups for other people, that kind of thing that we just heard testimony on. Can I just make a drafting suggestion? It seems like there are a lot of requirements on that demand side management, that maybe that should be a separate second law that's referenced here, or is consistent with the requirements of, because it seemed like there were many different things. Fine. And I didn't even address it all. Works for me. And I am interested in all of the suggestions that came from Mr. Shah. Mean, the one was about ratepayer protections, which I feel like we've sort of already talked about, but the other one, the other three being the requirement for batteries or some kind of virtual power plant, load shedding, which there was a lot to digest in there, so I don't have this right, but it's right now. But my, I'm sure you've got the load shedding was like the interruptible tariffs or was that something else? I don't No. I I would follow on her giving on-site management. Yes, yes. So load shedding is when the data center could be told you have to go down because we're at peak and you need to be possible so then we don't care about status. Yes, that's load shedding. Yes. And that is different than the battery, the backup generation. So there are two requirements. Are two different requirements. They have to have a backup generation and also help others have backup generation. That's the whole excessive battery, not sticker. Yes. And then, see this- It helped us remember. It is. Both of those seem to be demand side management requirements. And maybe they're in here to a certain extent, but- Not really, but I think that's a separate section of the world. Yeah, agree. And then his other suggestion was around that the use of the jet engine or, you know, spot on fossil fuels was strictly emergency level back. Yeah. Is that already in the middle too? Like they can't use fossil fuel for backup generation? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We wanna have that. Because that that is happening around the country, like a parking lot full of gas generators. Mhmm. Yeah. For the next two. Yeah. So what's the rationale for asking the data center to provide backup batteries for other people? So I think there's two reasons as I'm understanding it. One is that the batteries help reduce the peak or the demand at peak for them.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, they draw themselves. They're the ones drawing up into the housing power.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But then it's also useful to have the backup generation, not generation, I'm sorry, the batteries for use with really with the community at other times as well. So you're not needing to, What it says in his testimony is for data centers, it's about virtual power plants can allow customers on the same circuit to have batteries deployed for their use and help reduce the strain on the data centers caused on the grid for up to $200 per year, providing value back to the system. This is far preferable to the alternative, building new peak capacity that sort of idle most of the year and raises costs for everyone. And then he went on to say in his testimony, you know, this also provides a show of goodwill from this company that's coming in and building this thing to say, look, we care about you and you're gonna benefit you. But I don't know how necessarily is that being weird, but what he calls it is virtual. I think for this part, for now, if we can just give you that intention and then we can see what you come up with. But then there's this, right, and we did talk about the fourth one as well, to say that fossil fuels are just for mercy back over the. Okay. This might be a moment where I'm going to, because I think this is probably, Actually, is not necessarily the man side man. I'm not sure where this fits. Well, how close are we to being done? Oh, there's a couple more. One thing I did, one of the proposals he got, and I don't know if it should be stated clearly. Did I just say that? I'm sorry to interrupt, Maria. I don't think we're going to get too many of those action then, he was just sitting here. He wanted to, you don't have to be here if you don't want to. Okay. Sorry. We're not likely to get to your sessions. We are. Okay, thank you. Thank you for having said it already. Okay. Let's keep going and then I'll ask a question and this could just be in the demand side management section. But there was also a proposal from Bingberg that the facility's load does not increase the system heat or the Vermont load, the one standard with ISO, the Wayne loading system heat. That's, sorry, you're saying that that's a suggestion that would relate to seven in terms of the So that's a question. Do you want to require that, or would you want to have that as, this is a threshold. You need to now comply with all of the finance side management thing. This is gonna go to Mr. Welch first.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. As you noted, that was a request that we made on the house side. We did provide some language to the house on that point, and the language that we had was fairly not, you know, 100%, but fairly absolutist in terms of, like, no increased speed at all. I understand that there were significant concerns with that, but I do agree that in seven or, see, structure it adjacent to seven, something like measures to maximize the reduction in facility increase in the peak, etcetera, etcetera. So, you know, flexibility to leave utility and you see is figure out exactly what that means, but, directionally, that feels like it's not fully embedded in. I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: feel like that oh, sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. I kind of

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: feel like it is, but people needs to continue the conversation whether that actually needs to I mean, think shaving is a good thing we can do. So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I feel like it ties in for me in terms of the virtual power plan, because in a way that is one of the points of the virtual power plan is to reduce that peak. So it feels related to me. I'm happy to put it in there and we can have more conversation about whether it's necessary. Go from there. And it also, in conjunction with the virtual power plant, is actual on-site data store or energy storage at the data center that they have a lot of, they're just like a big building.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And so they can understand what is the difference between a virtual power plant and battery storage or hydro storage or any other type of storage?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that's what it is.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It is what it is.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm certainly not that one. When I understand, hear you're doing multiple battery systems that are together. It's a pretty remotely controlling that, so the utility to take off the, you know.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't know. I mean, I know I heard the last one I saw about the remote controlling of the area of locations, but I'm Right. It's not just a nice little agreement you have, like, Probably. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's keep going. So then subposition eight, line 15, including provisions for the collection of gross receipts classes, energy efficiency charges, and any other fees or charges that may be applicable to electricity driven use. So again, those are existing taxes and fees. So don't have, given those talking about money, we don't have to call out property taxes, because they would also pay property taxes. That would be tax related stuff. There's one more and then I'm gonna type on my idea. Go ahead. And then finally, and meet any other terms or conditions required by the BEC, the systems, purpose of this section, and in the public interest. Okay, so there's one other thing that I want to bring up, which is suggestions that we heard was that we require that because these are such a huge demand, just even off the bat, that we require that they're 100% new renewables so that largely speaking, there's no increase in the amount of carbon that's going into the answer as a result of these. I also hear from distribution utilities that it can be really hard, especially because of what's happening right now in terms of squashing offshore wind that's happening at the federal level. So, new renewables are kind of, they may be harder to come by, but we'll see about that, but one, because I am interested in like maximizing the amount of new renewables that these plants are using to generate the power that they're going to need. So, would love some kind of construct where we say you have to get as many new renewables, as much of your load has to be new renewables as is possible, and then maybe we have the PUC involved to say, is that the right amount, right? Like, have you gotten as many new renewables as you can? And then there's likely to be a gap. And beyond that, that like in realistic terms is probably the electricity that is largely going to come at the expense of like more carbon just going into the atmosphere. And so to make up for that, would love to just say for the remainder, there's effectively, it's not exactly an alternative compliance payment, but that's kind of the idea to say that you have to help Vermonters reduce their carbon pollution by saying we're similar amounts. And so, you know, we're getting as much renewables as possible and then the rest is like going to benefit Vermonters.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: What

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm thinking of in terms of like, okay, so the remainder is, you know, we're trying to reduce carbon, right? And if you're paying for that, then that could go to help pay for other things that are going to reduce carbon for the mantras in general. That, you know, thinking about like more geothermal, more heat pumps, more EVs, like whatever, just other ways to reduce carbon if we're otherwise looking at increasing carbon as a result of these data centers. So to the extent that they can't use renewable energy, they have to offset it by helping Yeah. Help us offset carbon

[Dan Moran (Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Something that I'm thinking about to the full spectrum.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. We're just adding more. Right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So anyway, that's one way to get to it. Sure. I mean, if we can try to come up, do you have language? I don't have language. Okay. And I wanted to float it with you all before I was like, let's, but if we, if there's no objection at this one, what do

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: you think Terry?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You don't care about it?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: We just have to be, I think, realistic. I think what is it? ISO New England on an annual basis, wind and solar are like 7% of all generations. So I think we do have to be a little realistic Yeah, about the

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that's fair. I think this is a way to get at it, but I hope it's realistic. So instead of a sticker that could give everybody an EB and EB, that's So, what we're talking about right now, I mean, the things that we've been talking about so far, we're going to keep going, but we're going to run out of time here in a little bit, but all of this is heading towards a new draft. And so leaving that to you to come up with how to frame that if that makes sense. Okay. And then we'll go from there. Okay, so we made it through, oh actually there is one other thing I wanted to say, which is about number three in this list. We still have it as three. It's the duration of the contract. I just want to flag that I, you know, we had this other provision to be like, you can't just up and leave. I wonder if you want to set like a minimum duration for certainty. Yes. The work, the deactivation book. There's a part of the bill that does that, it talks about that. They've got you, yeah. I wonder, I feel like there's gotta be the right balance between stability of like, they're here for a certain number, they're not gonna just abandon ship, and having such a long contract that changes can't be made as circumstances change, which they will undoubtedly change. Inevitably. So like, I don't know what that, you know, I think that time is. Yeah. Anyway, just want to flag it. We can talk more about it.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And then that, of course, then this side of Senator Williams comment.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. The release. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Cool, thank you. Moving on. Moving on page four. I got excited. Oh, tell me we're like, no, I'm not. No, oh. Well, figured we'll go until we get to the Okay. Next So line one, the commission shall not approve a large load service equity contract unless the commission first signs that the saying will promote the general vote of the state, and then, D, before the Commission approves a large vote service equity contract as required, the Commission shall find that the terms of the contract and then satisfy the next six, at least for our findings. And they did, I'm just bringing things up in the context where they came up. I think there was one suggestion to have therapy with an exemption through utilities based on their circumstances. So for example, they present big cause for getting an exception to one of these findings that the PSC had granted. That was a proposal that you have. I believe that's Mr. Nolan, something like that said.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Question. Yes. So the commission that's referring to the PCD? Promote the general good of the state. Do they just look at the energy or are they looking at you know development and the labor or what when they decide general good what's their it's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a great question I think I should go look okay So this was taken, this language actually was taken from the two forty eight, two forty eight citing. Okay. So I'm going to look and see what happens, the lens, you know. Okay. Think it's a broad that looks at not just being the rave hairs, but the ones that's full environmental, so by wanting to burn. Thank you for bringing that up. It would be great to have just be clear. Yeah. What does that mean? I'm not sure.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Mean, PUC's expertise is energy.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm thinking I'm looking at they're not looking at a lot of towards it. Right? Within the scope of what they do. So Well actually, so at the very least it should be in the context of what their expertise is. Right. Yeah. So then in terms of those findings, one, line seven, will non adversely impact the efficiency, reliability, and resilience of the electric power system. I think we can leave this list for another day and we'll keep going. That's a lot. So next week. Next week. Are we I think we're looking at Not gonna meet on Monday. Not gonna meet on Monday. We're gonna look at meeting at eight.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: 08:00 on Tuesday.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: 08:00. Well, and probably Not on Tuesday. Not on Tuesday. In fact, will likely not meet on Tuesday. Floor long. Will be long. And so we'll probably meet at eight Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. So if we have

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: an hour on Thursday, I think. I don't know if we have a public meeting this week.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, Well, me know because if you all are going to be put all the bills out when they're not here. Yeah. That's true. Wednesday. Is that right? Oh, that's true. Yes. So, we'll figure it out. I want to try to, we might just have a lot of votes on either late Thursday or Friday.