Vermont — Gov. Scott veto of large data center regulatory framework (2026)

VERMONT — GUBERNATORIAL VETO of a TRIPARTISAN bill that would have created A NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LARGE DATA CENTERS in the state, including measures similar to those in federal legislation then before Congress. VETOED BY GOV. PHIL SCOTT (R) in 2026. STATED GROUNDS FOR THE VETO, as reported: (1) he believes VERMONT ALREADY HAS SUFFICIENT REGULATIONS IN PLACE TO SCRUTINISE A PROPOSED LARGE DATA CENTER; (2) the bill WENT TOO FAR by subjecting the facilities to [the specification is truncated in the retrieved text]. Scott has maintained the position since — as recently as the week before 2026-09-16 he continued to say he does not think Vermont needs new state-level regulations aimed at data centers. THE ENTRY IS RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE OUTCOME because the dataset's value depends on recording where protections were sought and NOT obtained; a state with no framework is materially different from a state that never considered one, and the bill's tripartisan character makes the veto the operative cause of its absence. Compare me-ld307-data-center-moratorium-2026-vetoed. THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTION IS THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT. JULIE MOORE, Vermont's SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES — an official in Scott's own administration — testified before a U.S. CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE in support of A FEDERAL BILL THAT WOULD DIRECT STATES TO LIMIT THE COSTS CONSUMERS SHOULDER FOR THE WATER USED BY DATA CENTERS. Quoted, she supports 'REQUIRING OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO HELP PAY FOR THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS THEY CREATE,' as well as STUDYING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS data centers could have on nearby water sources. The testimony is described as a rarity for Vermont officials. DAN FINGAS, executive director of VERMONT CONSERVATION VOTERS (which lobbied for the vetoed bill): 'I do think there's a contradiction. This testimony from Secretary Moore to Congress shows that they've already seen areas where Vermont is left unprotected — or, at least, needs more protection.' MOORE'S REBUTTAL, recorded for fairness: she said in an interview that her testimony was UNRELATED to the reasons Scott rejected the bill. THAT IS A COHERENT POSITION — supporting a federal cost-allocation standard is not the same as supporting a state permitting framework — and this entry does not adjudicate between them. TWO SIGNIFICANT UNINDEXED LEADS RECORDED: (1) THE FEDERAL WATER-COST BILL Moore testified in support of is NOT NAMED in the source and is distinct from H.R. 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act (House-passed 417-3; blocked in Senate), which concerns ELECTRICITY grid costs — a federal bill addressing DATA CENTER WATER costs would be the first of its kind in this dataset. (2) THREE VERMONT CITIES AND TOWNS have passed regulations aimed at prohibiting data centers at least temporarily (attributed to Seven Days reporting); NONE ARE NAMED and none are currently indexed. ALSO RECORDED: in VERNON, a company has eyed the FORMER VERMONT YANKEE site — the decommissioned nuclear plant — for a data center project 'or something else'; the existing-power-infrastructure reuse pattern seen at Pioneer OH six-month data center moratorium (2026) (former AquaBounty site) and Oakland CA 45-day data center moratorium (Oct. 2026) (former Lawrence Berkeley supercomputing building). POLITICAL CONTEXT: data centers have become a major national issue before the November midterms, with recent polling showing them, especially AI facilities, increasingly unpopular with voters; Vermont Conservation Voters launched a public campaign called 'DON'T DATA CENTER VERMONT.' THE BILL NUMBER WAS NOT OBTAINED — see notes.