Lawmakers probe whether data centers escape Act 250 oversight as committee considers H.0727

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee spent extensive testimony on Feb. 24 probing how H.0727 — a bill addressing data‑center siting — would interact with existing state review processes and whether mid‑sized facilities could fall into an unreviewed "gap." Witnesses and Land Use Review Board staff said that, under current law, jurisdiction primarily depends on parcel acreage, water use, and whether the developer seeks a Public Utility Commission certificate of public good (CPG).

Pete Gill, executive director of the Land Use Review Board, told the committee that Act 250 jurisdiction typically hinges on whether a project qualifies as "development" and on parcel acreage: in towns without zoning or subdivision bylaws Act 250 can be triggered at a 1‑acre threshold, while in towns with zoning/subdivision bylaws the usual acreage trigger is 10 acres. "It's the parcel size," Gill said, emphasizing that the land area — not building footprint — determines Act 250 triggers.

Witnesses also said Act 250 has a water‑use trigger that could apply to data centers. Figures discussed during the hearing varied; staff said there are established daily gallon thresholds and offered to provide the exact statutory figure. Committee members later heard numbers during the discussion such as a typical average like 300,000 gallons per day and up to 5,000,000 gallons per day for very large facilities; staff volunteered to provide the precise threshold in writing.

Several committee members and LURB members warned of a potential oversight gap if H.0727 intended to bring all data centers under Act 250 but the bill relied only on existing acreage or water thresholds. Representative Sebelia summed up the concern: "the thought that we would be setting up a process where a 9.5 acre data center could come in and be subject only to local approval, that's a no go for me." Gill said that to require both PUC and Act 250 review would require explicit statutory change: "if you want split jurisdiction, you have to change our statute somehow."

The committee discussed potential remedies: (1) add a narrowly tailored jurisdictional trigger to Act 250 linked to large electric load or energy usage for data centers (a statutory change that could require rulemaking); (2) delay issuance of any new "large load" contracts or large‑load tariff approvals until Act 250 review is complete; or (3) restrict enhanced review to a defined set of candidate sites (for example, mapped enterprise areas or parcels utilities have identified as suitable) to avoid broad statutory change.

Land Use Review Board members suggested a practical coordination measure: push the bill's effective date out (committee staff estimated three to six months) so the board and PUC could coordinate an MOU or clarify the bifurcation of authority if the committee intends both entities to play a role. Committee members also asked for written redlines and for LURB to provide suggested statutory language after its Thursday meeting so legislative staff could incorporate changes before the crossover deadline.

No formal motion or vote occurred during this hearing; the committee asked staff and LURB to deliver suggested language and data points (including the exact Act 250 water‑use threshold) for a near‑term committee decision.