Conference committee narrows study of decommissioning impacts, asks for finer forest data

A joint conference committee reviewing draft changes to a House-Senate bill on decommissioning agreed this session to narrow the scope of a proposed study and to add more detailed forest-habitat data after receiving input from state agencies and conservation advocates.

Representative Kathleen James (House District 13) and other committee participants said the committee had walked through new decommissioning language and an updated definition of a 'single plan' and had no outstanding concerns about those provisions. The committee’s principal discussion focused on the study language attached to the bill and how feasible it would be for the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Department of Public Service (DPS) to collect the information requested.

Committee members said they had received a written letter from the Department of Public Service and testimony from the PUC indicating that some data originally requested would be difficult or resource-intensive to gather. In response, DPS, PUC and Agency of Natural Resources staff worked quickly to propose consensus wording (draft 1.1) intended to balance usefulness and feasibility.

The Nature Conservancy told the committee that the high-level data the original study language would yield would not provide the level of detail the group considers necessary to assess impacts on different forest-habitat types. To address that concern, the House team proposed a revised draft (2.1) that would include a graph and related fields to provide a more granular breakdown of trees cleared by habitat or forest block while keeping the data collection scope manageable.

As part of making the study feasible for agency review, the committee agreed to limit the lookback period from five years to two years and to limit the study to projects of one megawatt or greater. Members said relevant information should be available in Certificate of Public Good (CPG) filings and associated environmental impact assessments, which would make the narrower study more practicable for the PUC to compile. The committee indicated it expects the revised, workable draft by January.

Committee staff also raised drafting questions about phrasing such as whether 'in the last two years' should instead read 'in the last two total calendar years'; staff were asked to check standard conference-committee wording with legislative counsel. Members paused the meeting while awaiting Senator Scott Beckon, who was expected to join later, and discussed availability of a clean copy of the draft for signatures if no further changes are made.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in the provided transcript. The next procedural steps reported were staff verification of drafting language and circulation of the clean draft; committee members said they would sign if the draft requires no further edits.