Committee reviews S.323 Section 9: adds agriculture party language, debates 25‑year lifecycle audits for solar siting

The committee reviewed Section 9 of S.323 on March 11, focusing on whether the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets should be added as a required party in Public Utility Commission permit proceedings and on a new requirement for applicants to submit a 25‑year cradle‑to‑grave audit of energy payback and carbon dioxide emissions, staff said.

Ellen Jake of the Office of Legislative Council walked members through draft 2.1 and read the proposed additions in the section, including language that would make the agriculture agency a formal party in proceedings in addition to the Agency of Natural Resources and an audit requirement for solar energy generation facilities. "In addition to the Agency of Natural Resources ... the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets also shall appear as a party," Jake said while reading the draft language, and she summarized the proposed lifecycle audit mandate for solar projects.

The committee discussed how the draft would change existing practice. Under current statute, the agriculture agency already is a required party in proceedings for certain larger projects (the draft and committee discussion referred to electric generation facilities over 500 kilowatts and energy storage over 1 megawatt); the proposed language would broaden the agency's required participation to additional matters. Committee members raised concerns that the insertion could be duplicative and burdensome and suggested replacing the mandatory "shall" with a permissive "may," or striking the insertion so the agency retains its existing notice and limited rights in many cases.

Members also debated the audit requirement. The draft would have applicants pay for a full‑spectrum audit performed by a Vermont‑licensed engineering firm approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation that calculates energy payback time and carbon dioxide emissions on a cradle‑to‑grave basis over 25 years, including resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, installation and disposal. "That is onerous and uncalled for," one committee member said, arguing much of the work would be repetitive across projects; another asked whether licensed (not necessarily Vermont‑only) firms or in‑house credentialed engineers could perform the work.

Committee members pressed on the policy goals and practical effects. Some said the audit could help verify developers' claims; others warned it could be punitive, slow projects, or fail to help farmers. Members asked whether the measure would impede agrivoltaics — arrangements in which agricultural uses and solar co‑exist — and whether developers should be required to disclose if projects rely primarily on tax or incentive benefits rather than power sales. "If the incentive wasn't there, would you do it?" a member asked, summing up a line of questioning about project economics.

The panel agreed in multiple places to remove or reword provisions in the draft rather than leave them verbatim. Members said they would strike the explicit insertion naming the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets as a required party (leaving the Agency of Natural Resources role unchanged), drop or revise redundant soils‑definition language referencing NRCS mapping, and remove a paragraph that would have declared siting that prevented tilling, seeding or harvesting on more than five acres of prime soils to be "undue" and therefore not in the public good.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the discussion. The committee asked staff to revise the draft language to address the concerns raised — changing mandatory language to permissive where appropriate, clarifying which engineering credentials are acceptable, and removing or clarifying redundant soil‑classification text — and took a five‑minute recess before continuing with the agenda.

What happens next: Committee members said they expect to reconvene and review the edited draft; the transcript records direction to Legislative Council staff to make the changes and return to the committee for further consideration.