Rep. Monique Priestley urges PUC oversight for cloud computing, calls it critical infrastructure

Representative Monique Priestley told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that Vermont depends on cloud computing in the same way it depends on electricity and phone service and that the state lacks guardrails for pricing, reliability and data portability. "Cloud computing is no longer optional. It is foundational," she said, arguing the state should treat qualifying cloud services as utilities when those services are critical to the public interest.

Priestley outlined a framework she said the bill would create: recognize cloud services that meet a size threshold as subject to PUC oversight; require qualifying providers to file rate schedules and terms of service for review; authorize the PUC to set minimum service and reliability standards (including uptime and continuity expectations and data‑security measures); and prohibit excessive termination fees while requiring reasonable data portability in usable formats.

The sponsor emphasized the bill does not regulate content or specific technologies, and it would include thresholds designed to exclude small or incidental providers. "This restores basic market mobility and choice," Priestley said, describing portability and limits on termination fees as central consumer protections.

Committee members asked about interstate and federal constraints. Several members said data centers and servers often sit outside Vermont, and that federal authority may limit state action. Priestley acknowledged the legal complexity but said staff had reviewed commerce‑clause and domicile concerns and that the bill is intended as a starting point for a multiyear conversation and a PUC process to set workable thresholds.

A small‑business representative described past cloud outages that disrupted commerce and urged reliability commitments from firms doing business in Vermont. Committee members suggested the measure could be refined through testimony from utilities, the Department of Public Service, and affected customers before committee action.

The committee did not take a vote; members thanked the sponsor and signaled interest in follow‑up testimony and legal review as the bill is developed.