PUC urges contracts, workshop for data‑center bill rather than new siting regime
February 13, 2026 | Environment & Energy, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Representative Kathleen James opened the Health, Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 13 and invited testimony from the Vermont Public Utility Commission on H.727, the bill addressing data centers in Vermont.
Greg Taylor of the Vermont Public Utility Commission told the committee the PUC recommends removing a proposed tariff requirement and instead allowing utilities to provide service under special contracts approved by the PUC: "instead of a tariff, they're gonna enter into a special contract," Taylor said, noting the commission would review those contracts to protect ratepayers. He also recommended dropping a separate siting / certificate provision for large loads, saying transmission review and interconnection processes (and Act 250 where applicable) already cover new large loads such as data centers.
The PUC suggested the committee consider directing a technical conference or workshop rather than a formal PUC investigation to establish a baseline for Vermont. Taylor explained the difference: a formal investigation is evidentiary and takes testimony under oath, while a workshop is non‑evidentiary and better suited for collaborative problem‑solving among stakeholders.
Committee members raised concerns about a pending federal rulemaking noted in testimony to VELCO and asked the PUC to follow up about potential impacts on state rate‑making authority. Taylor said he would review the testimony and identify appropriate PUC contacts.
Members also discussed practical limits on data‑center attraction, including Vermont’s relatively high electric rates, and noted that smaller data centers already operate in the state without reported problems. The committee did not take a formal vote on H.727; the PUC said it will work with staff and the department on drafting language if the committee wants statutory direction to convene a workshop.
The committee set the PUC’s suggested workshop and contract‑review approach as the next step for fact‑gathering.
The committee adjourned with no final action on H.727; the PUC said it would follow up with testimony and possible drafting guidance.
Greg Taylor of the Vermont Public Utility Commission told the committee the PUC recommends removing a proposed tariff requirement and instead allowing utilities to provide service under special contracts approved by the PUC: "instead of a tariff, they're gonna enter into a special contract," Taylor said, noting the commission would review those contracts to protect ratepayers. He also recommended dropping a separate siting / certificate provision for large loads, saying transmission review and interconnection processes (and Act 250 where applicable) already cover new large loads such as data centers.
The PUC suggested the committee consider directing a technical conference or workshop rather than a formal PUC investigation to establish a baseline for Vermont. Taylor explained the difference: a formal investigation is evidentiary and takes testimony under oath, while a workshop is non‑evidentiary and better suited for collaborative problem‑solving among stakeholders.
Committee members raised concerns about a pending federal rulemaking noted in testimony to VELCO and asked the PUC to follow up about potential impacts on state rate‑making authority. Taylor said he would review the testimony and identify appropriate PUC contacts.
Members also discussed practical limits on data‑center attraction, including Vermont’s relatively high electric rates, and noted that smaller data centers already operate in the state without reported problems. The committee did not take a formal vote on H.727; the PUC said it will work with staff and the department on drafting language if the committee wants statutory direction to convene a workshop.
The committee set the PUC’s suggested workshop and contract‑review approach as the next step for fact‑gathering.
The committee adjourned with no final action on H.727; the PUC said it would follow up with testimony and possible drafting guidance.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
