House Energy panel backs ADS letter, endorses $14 million FY27 budget increase in straw polls

MONTPELIER — The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Thursday reviewed a draft letter to House Appropriations describing proposed changes to the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) budget for fiscal year 2027 and signaled support, via committee straw polls, for two key items in that letter.

Joint Fiscal Office staff told the committee the draft letter ‘reflects my understanding’ of ADS’s proposals and that the FY27 plan creates “an overall increase in $14,000,000 in general fund pressure under this FY ’27 proposal,” made up of roughly a $9,000,000 direct general-fund appropriation to ADS and about $5,000,000 in added bill-back authority, which JFO described as recognition of work ADS already performs.

The committee also straw-polled in favor of a structural change that would convert ADS’s single internal service fund into four separate internal service funds. Chair Representative Kathleen James said the committee’s intent is to include the combination of support for the structural change and the funding explanation in the letter; the transcript records a straw-poll tally of 9–0 in favor of the structural change language and a separate 9–0 straw poll in favor of the $14 million description.

Why it matters

The changes would shift how IT work is budgeted and billed across state agencies and increase direct general-fund exposure in FY27. JFO and committee members repeatedly raised oversight and reporting questions tied to the proposed shift of spending-authority for large bespoke IT projects — an authorization roughly described in the meeting as $47,000,000 in FY26 that the committee is proposing be allocated directly to sponsoring agencies rather than held centrally at ADS.

Key details and committee concerns

• JFO’s assessment: A JFO staffer told members the draft letter “reflects my understanding of the issues and the proposals that ADS has put forward for the FY27 budget cycle” and recommended the committee confirm the letter accurately describes the proposals before sending it to House Appropriations.

• Composition of the $14 million: The committee heard that the $14,000,000 net new general-fund pressure comprises a $9,000,000 direct appropriation and about $5,000,000 in additional bill-back authority to ADS.

• Visibility and oversight: Members pressed JFO and Lisa Gobin, JFO’s IT consultant, on how the legislature can obtain a consolidated, searchable view of IT projects and spending across agencies. Gobin noted the annual report remains a primary resource and that “we can still use the annual report for that,” but staff and members said creating a single ‘30,000-foot’ view would be a heavy lift and likely require collaboration with ADS and Finance & Management, and possibly new tagging or account codes in budget submissions.

• Reporting and statutory obligations: JFO recommended the committee ensure statutory reporting requirements are preserved if spending-authority is reallocated to sponsoring agencies. Members flagged the need for ADS and Finance & Management to work with the committee to define what data and cadence would satisfy oversight needs.

PUC budget and ANR/H.740 funding note

Committee members also discussed the Public Utility Commission (PUC) budget, with Chair James and others saying the PUC faces structural shortfalls and is drawing down reserves. Chair James said the letter would note committee concern while otherwise supporting the PUC’s FY27 budget where there is no specific supplemental request.

Late in the meeting Chair James told members she had learned the committee should include a heads-up in the budget letter about potential funding requests tied to H.740 (the greenhouse gas reporting bill) should that bill pass and later seek appropriations. According to the committee’s exchange, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) had initially asked for $800,000 but told the chair they would focus on a $500,000 ongoing base request and defer a $300,000 one-time request for now. James said she would draft language to add to the letter, post it, and reconvene the group for a formal straw poll after members had time to review it.

Votes and procedural next steps

The meeting record shows the committee completed straw polls on several letter sections: the structural fund split and the $14 million funding description each recorded a 9–0 straw-poll result in favor of including the corresponding language in the letter. The committee did not take a final formal vote on reallocating the $47,000,000 in spending authority during the session; members expressed concerns about how reallocation would affect statutory reporting and oversight, and discussed options for tagging or account codes to preserve transparency.

What’s next

Chair James said she would draft and post the proposed H.740 language and take a formal straw poll once members had a chance to review the precise wording; the committee’s budget letter to House Appropriations was due the next day.

Attributions

Quotes and attributions are taken directly from the committee transcript. Primary speakers in the discussion include Representative Kathleen James (chair), JFO staff (Joint Fiscal Office), and Lisa Gobin (JFO IT consultant).