Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Water Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs closed‑loop cooling, withdrawal permits and PFAS monitoring for data centers
Summary
Draft language would require closed‑loop cooling or approved alternatives, trigger surface‑water withdrawal assessments at a future regulatory threshold, and require PFAS monitoring and discharge limits tied to water‑quality standards or EPA reporting limits; committee debated feasibility and implementation timing.
Lawmakers and agency staff debated draft provisions aimed at limiting the water‑use and wastewater impacts of proposed data centers, and at ensuring monitoring for per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in discharges.
Committee members reviewed language that would require closed‑loop cooling systems for data centers using water for cooling, or an alternative system approved by the district commission that must "minimize groundwater or surface water use and not unreasonably burden public water supply." The draft also directs the agency to assess impacts and, if appropriate, to set a future volume threshold for surface‑water withdrawal permitting.
On wastewater, the draft would require data centers that discharge waste to monitor for the maximum number of PFAS analytes detectable under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard methods and to meet criteria established under the state's water‑quality standards. If no PFAS criteria exist under state standards, the draft would prohibit discharges above EPA reporting limits for the methods specified; committee members raised concerns about implementation if Vermont has not adopted specific PFAS criteria.
Committee members and agency staff discussed how long it may take to develop Vermont-specific criteria, whether the reporting‑limit approach is practical during the interim, and the need to timestamp the reference methods (suggesting a date such as Jan. 1, 2026) to avoid ambiguity about which EPA methods apply. Members also raised groundwater permitting and public‑trust analysis requirements for withdrawals that would apply regardless of daily withdrawal volume.
No formal vote was taken; members asked staff for a revised draft that clarifies the trigger volumes, the monitoring-methods date stamp, and the interaction between monitoring/reporting limits and future water‑quality criteria.
