House Energy committee weighs data center bill language on decommissioning, water use and PFAS

Representative Kathleen James opened the session and asked staff to walk members through draft 1.4 of H.727, the committee's data‑center bill. She said the committee's immediate aim was to finalize what could reasonably be completed before the crossover deadline and to avoid duplicating the Act 250 siting review in the PUC contract‑approval process.

"We have 2 bills to vote out before we adjourn for the day so that we can hit our crossover deadline," Representative Kathleen James said, and asked legislative staff to lead a line‑by‑line review of the new draft.

Maria Romer reviewed the draft's changes. On contract provisions she noted the committee had removed language specifying how excess‑demand charges would be calculated and that proposed PUC decommissioning findings had been struck; instead, she described a study/recommendation process for decommissioning. "The commissioner of public service, in consultation with the secretary of natural resources, the chair of the land use review board, and any other interested stakeholders deemed appropriate by the commissioner, shall conduct a study on data center decommissioning," Romer said, citing the committee language that calls for draft legislation and recommendations by Dec. 15.

Committee members widely supported including decommissioning protections but debated the appropriate form. Several members asked that the deliverable be recommendations and draft legislation rather than an open, potentially costly study that would require outside contracting. A committee member summarized the prevailing view: recommendations and draft legislation would be preferable to a procurement that would trigger new expense lines.

The committee also focused on where greenhouse‑gas and other environmental criteria should be reviewed. Agency staff and several members argued that Act 250's project‑level criteria already require planning and design to minimize emissions and that specifying statewide GWSA targets inside a PUC contract review would inappropriately make individual projects responsible for statewide performance. "I would be comfortable cutting those lines," Representative James said, referring to language that would ask the PUC to evaluate whether a contract hinders the state's Global Warming Solutions Act goals.

Water use, cooling and permitting drew extensive discussion. Agency staff explained that if a data center proposed to use groundwater or surface water to cool its facility, it would be required to obtain groundwater or surface‑water withdrawal permits from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) regardless of current per‑day thresholds; the bill also requires that facilities identify closed‑loop cooling systems where feasible and obtain all applicable water‑resource permits (stormwater, shoreland, wetlands, shoreland and other listed certificates).

Agency staff described closed‑loop systems as reducing water use substantially (roughly 70–80 percent less water use than once‑through systems), but noted such systems still generate a reduced discharge. The committee discussed how monitoring and drought conditions would be handled under ANR permits.

PFAS featured prominently in the water discussion. The draft uses the EPA definition and requires that a data center that discharges wastewater "identify PFAS that may be used in the operation" and submit an ANR‑approved monitoring plan for wastewater discharges that includes testing for PFAS. Agency representatives said the stated policy intent is to prohibit the addition of PFAS to discharges while recognizing that PFAS may be present in source water; monitoring would establish whether PFAS levels rise in the discharge relative to intake and would give ANR the evidence to require corrective action, reopen permits or impose conditions.

"The goal is not to discharge," said John Grama of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, who spoke in support of a monitoring condition and explained that monitoring would provide the agency the information needed to act if elevated PFAS levels were detected.

Members asked practical questions about monitoring frequency, lab methods and cost. Agency staff said monitoring would most practically follow EPA assessment methods (the agency's existing analytical protocols), require repeated samples over time and from multiple locations (mixing zones), and could be more expensive if the committee tried to test for every fluorinated compound rather than using established EPA methods.

On statutory placement, PUC staff and others recommended striking language that duplicated Act 250 criteria from the PUC contract section and moving siting and water reporting provisions into Act 250 (Title 10) where appropriate; the PUC would retain contract‑review language in the utility statute (Title 30).

The committee did not take a final vote on H.727. Members agreed to incorporate the drafting suggestions and return with a revised draft, and Maria Romer said staff would prepare a final version for the meeting's next review.

The committee asked that the decommissioning deliverable be framed as recommendations with draft legislation (to avoid triggering additional procurement costs), and members requested clarification of Act 250 triggers, ANR monitoring standards, and how the decommissioning requirement would be sequenced so contracts could not be executed before decommissioning protections were specified.