Vermont bill H.677 would make Agency of Agriculture a formal party in PUC solar siting cases and require lifecycle audits

Representative Greg Burt introduced H.677 to the committee as a measure to change how large-scale solar projects are reviewed in Vermont, saying, "This is about siting of solar mostly." The bill would require the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to appear as a party in Public Utility Commission (PUC) proceedings over energy generation projects and would obligate applicants to pay for lifecycle audits of energy payback time and carbon dioxide emissions.

The measure, read into the record by legislative counsel Ellen Jacobs, seeks to amend Section 248 of Title 30 — the Certificate of Public Good process that the PUC uses for energy generation permitting. Jacobs told the committee: "It is called the Certificate of Public Good Process," and explained the bill would change current language so the Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets "shall appear as parties" rather than being optional participants.

Why it matters: committee members said farmland is being targeted for utility-scale solar because open fields are convenient to develop, raising questions about loss of productive acreage and long-term food security. Representative Burt framed the bill as balancing competing land uses and asked the PUC to have more explicit guidance when weighing whether a project is "in the public good." The bill would require the PUC to consider impacts to primary, statewide and locally important agricultural soils as defined in 10 V.S.A. §6001 and would add greenhouse-gas impacts and a specific 5-acre threshold for when siting becomes "undue and not in the public good."

Key provisions discussed: - Agency participation: H.677 would make the Agency of Agriculture a required party to PUC proceedings so it can submit evidence and recommendations on agricultural impacts, rather than merely receiving notice and optionally participating. Jacobs said the agency currently participates in the largest projects but would be required to participate for a wider set of applications under H.677. - Lifecycle audits: the bill directs a Vermont-licensed engineering firm approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation to "perform a full spectrum audit of energy payback time and carbon dioxide emissions" at the applicant's expense. Jacobs read language requiring a cradle-to-grave calculation "including resource extraction, mining and procurement, production, manufacturing, and transportation," and deployment and disposal impacts. - Agricultural-Soil threshold: the bill flags as "undue" any siting that precludes tilling, seeding, growing or harvesting on more than 5 acres of primary/statewide/local importance soils or that destroys forest ecosystems or releases forest soil carbon on more than 5 acres.

Committee concerns and practical questions: - Economic trade-offs: one committee member noted a corn crop might net about $400 per acre while speakers said they had "heard values on solar rent ... up to $2,000 per acre," often on 20–25 year leases, raising concerns that short-term economic incentives could convert farmland to long-term nonagricultural use. - Farming beneath arrays: members debated agrivoltaic options. Burt and others said pasture or some low-intensity uses may be feasible, but cropping yields (hay, corn) are likely to decline; one committee member estimated roughly a 50% reduction in tonnage where shade is comparable to tree-line effects. - Statutory scope and mitigation: Jacobs clarified that Act 250 uses a formulaic mitigation approach for impacted soils, while Section 248 does not; H.677 would add specificity within the PUC process but would not automatically import Act 250's mitigation formula. She noted that current statute already requires applicants to address acreage of primary, secondary and locally important soils as designated by NRCS mapping. - Administrative burden: members asked whether requiring Agriculture to be a party would create heavy staff demands; Jacobs said much depends on how actively the agency chooses to participate and that notification would increase administrative work but not necessarily be onerous if the agency has no substantive comment in a case.

What the bill does not do (as discussed): H.677 does not itself set mitigation amounts or require specific offsets identical to Act 250; it requires applicants to include lifecycle audits and expands required party status to ensure agricultural expertise is part of the PUC record. The committee did not take any votes on the bill during the transcripted discussion.

Next steps: committee members asked staff to follow up with the Agency of Agriculture and the PUC about implementation details (e.g., whether DEC approval of engineers is necessary, how often the agency has participated historically, and whether the PUC maintains an accessible case history). The next procedural steps were not specified in the transcript.