VermontData centers would face new power, water, and reporting rules
If enacted, Vermont would require large data centers to secure special electric contracts and meet detailed energy, water, environmental, and reporting requirements.
What it does
Large data centers would need Commission-approved electric contracts that cover their system costs and protect other ratepayers from data-center expenses.
Data centers would have to limit grid and water impacts through energy planning, renewable resources, emergency-only combustion backup, cooling controls, and water permits.
Data centers would publicly report water, energy, and infrastructure payments, while state agencies would study renewable markets and prepare shutdown rules.
Argument forRequiring data centers to pay their share of grid costs and manage demand could reduce the risk that other ratepayers cover their electricity needs.
Argument againstThe contract, cooling, permit, payment, and reporting requirements could raise project costs or delay construction for data-center owners.
More detail
A data center would need an approved large-load service contract with its electric company before receiving service. This applies to facilities that use or can use at least 20 megawatts and provide data processing, hosting, or related services. The Public Utility Commission would have to find that the contract serves the general good, benefits the State and residents, protects the electric system, and meets stated energy and environmental policies. The contract would require the data center to cover its share of electric-service and system costs, make minimum payments based on projected use, provide collateral, manage demand, and address emergencies. Data centers could not take part in specified energy-savings or customer-credit programs. The act would apply to data centers that are not operational when the act takes effect and to smaller operating centers that later expand to meet the 20-megawatt threshold.
Data center owners and operators would have to plan for energy efficiency, renewable power, demand management, and lower-impact cooling systems. The requirements cover proposed and operating data centers subject to the bill, including facilities using water, groundwater, surface water, or combustion-based backup generators. Before seeking a major development permit, an owner or operator would have to study site suitability and consult the electric company and efficiency utility. Combustion-based backup generators could be used only during power failures or other emergencies, while batteries and on-site renewable power would be prioritized when practicable. Water-cooled facilities would generally need closed-loop cooling or a Commission-approved alternative, plus required water, discharge, withdrawal, and water-quality permits. Facilities would have to monitor PFAS in covered discharges and follow water-quality limits. These requirements would apply to covered data centers subject to the bill’s effective-date and expansion rules.
Data centers and state agencies would have to provide regular reports and recommendations about data-center impacts and future regulation. Data centers would report energy, water, and shared-infrastructure payments; state officials would study regional renewable markets and future data-center shutdowns. A data center would begin quarterly reports within three months after becoming operational, and the reports would be open to public inspection. The Department of Public Service would include data-center findings in its annual report only if at least one data center had entered the required electric contract. The Public Utility Commission would accept written public input for its renewable-market report, and the Public Service Commissioner would consult with other officials and interested parties on decommissioning recommendations. The renewable-market report would be due by January 15, 2027; decommissioning recommendations would be due by December 15, 2026; annual impact reporting would begin by January 15, 2028 when the stated contract condition is met.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 29Veto of the Governor sustained by a vote of Yeas = 83, Nays = 52Latest
- Vote recorded Veto of the Governor sustained by a vote of Yeas = 83, Nays = 52. Result: fail.Lower
- May 29Rules suspended and taken up for immediate consideration as moved by Rep. McCoy of Poultney
- May 29Notice Calendar: Governor’s Veto
- May 28House message: Governor Phil Scott vetoed bill on May 28, 2026Major
- May 28Vetoed by Governor Phil Scott on May 28, 2026Major
- May 22Delivered to Governor on May 22, 2026To Governor
- May 22House message: House concurred in Senate proposal of amendmentMinor
- May 20Senate proposal of amendment concurred inMinor
- May 20Rules suspended and taken up for immediate consideration as moved by Rep. McCoy of Poultney
- May 20Notice Calendar: Senate Proposal of AmendmentMinor
- May 19Senate Message: Passed in concurrence with proposal of amendmentMinor
- May 19Rules suspended & messaged to House forthwith, on motion of Senator Baruth
- May 19Read 3rd time & passed in concurrence with proposal of amendmentPassed 2nd Chamber
- May 19Pending third reading, motion to amend Senate proposal of amendment by Senator(s) Perchlik agreed toMinor
- May 19New Business/Third ReadingMinor
- May 153rd reading ordered
- Vote recorded Proposal of amendment agreed to on roll call, requested by Senator Hashim, Passed -- Needed 15 of 29 to Pass -- Yeas = 26, Nays = 3. Result: pass.Upper
- May 15Roll Call, Requested by Sen. Hashim
- May 15Proposal of amendment agreed to on roll call, requested by Senator Hashim, Passed -- Needed 15 of 29 to Pass -- Yeas = 26, Nays = 3Minor
- May 15Reported favorably by Senator Beck for Committee on FinanceMinor
- May 15Read 2nd time, reported favorably with proposal of amendment by Senator Watson for Committee on Natural Resources and EnergyMinor
- May 15Favorable report by Committee on FinanceMinor
- May 15Favorable report with proposal of amendment by Committee on Natural Resources and EnergyMinor
- May 15New Business/Second ReadingMinor
- May 14Favorable report by Committee on FinanceMinor
- May 14Favorable report with proposal of amendment by Committee on Natural Resources and EnergyMinor
- May 14Entered on Notice Calendar
- May 12Referred to Committee on Finance per Senate Rule 31
- May 12Favorable report with proposal of amendment by Committee on Natural Resources and EnergyMinor
- May 12Second ReadingMinor
- May 12Entered on Notice Calendar
- Apr 17Committee on Finance relieved; bill committed to Committee on Natural Resources and Energy on motion of Senator Cummings
- Apr 2Read 1st time & referred to Committee on FinanceMinor
- Mar 31Read third time and passedPassed 1st Chamber
- Mar 31Action Calendar: Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 27Third Reading orderedMinor
- Mar 27Report of Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure agreed to
- Mar 27Rep. Ode of Burlington recommended for the Committee on Ways and Means
- Mar 27Rep. Sibilia of Dover reported for the Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure
- Mar 27Read second timeMinor
- Mar 27Action Calendar: Action postponed until March 27, 2026
- Mar 26Rep. Sibilia of Dover moved to postpone action until March 27, 2026, which was agreed to
- Mar 26Action Calendar: Action postponed until March 26, 2026
- Mar 25Rep. Sibilia of Dover moved to postpone action until March 26, 2026, which was agreed to
- Mar 25Action Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
- Mar 24Notice Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
- Mar 17Referred to Committee on Ways and Means per Rule 35(a)
- Mar 17Notice Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
- Jan 21Read first time and referred to the Committee on Energy and Digital InfrastructureIntroduced
- May 29Veto of the Governor sustained by a vote of Yeas = 83, Nays = 52Latest
Environment & EnergyTechnologyConsumer Protection