Vermont almost made Big Tech play by the strongest data-center rules in the country. The Governor said no. Here's how you finish the job — starting today.
Vermont has no giant data center — yet. Our grid is too small for one. Lawmakers passed a bill to stop it: H.727. The Governor said no — by just seven votes. The door is still open. The tools to close it are yours.
A giant data center won't stay in one town. Here's how it touches your life.
2The situation
What happened — and what comes next
Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress
Legislative timeline
Completed:
Jan 6, 2026
S.205 introduced — temporary moratorium on AI data centers >100 MW until 2030-07-01
Sen. Rebecca White's bill referred to Senate Finance; stalled in committee. The vehicle that moved was H.727. S.205 died at adjournment May 29, 2026.
Completed:
2026 session
H.727 passed Senate 26–3
"VT Sustainable Data Centers Act" — a 20 MW framework (megawatts, or MW, measure electricity demand), plus ratepayer protections, water/PFAS monitoring, and on-site renewables.
Completed:
2026 session
H.727 passed House — near-unanimous voice vote
One of the most decisive data-center votes in any state legislature.
Completed:
May 28, 2026
Governor Scott vetoed H.727
Vermont has no data-center-specific law as a result. H.727 did not become law.
Completed:
May 29, 2026
House override failed 83–52 — seven votes short of the 90 needed
S.205 also died at adjournment the same day. No operative data-center statute exists in Vermont.
Pending:
Next session
Revive H.727 — the mandate already exists
The bill text is ready. The supermajority voted for it once. The job is to close a seven-vote gap.
A vetoed bill and a failed override are not defeat — they are a mandate with a seven-vote gap.
3Regulatory landscape
Vermont's regulatory tools — what exists today
Vermont regulatory tools for data-center oversight — scope, data-center coverage, and current status
Indirect — fossil backup directly conflicts with statute
Active
Town Meeting / Zoning (24 V.S.A. §4414 / §4415)
Local siting — bylaws & interim rules
Yes — conditional use, interim bylaws, moratorium
Active
Four-stage horizontal flow: Petition filed, then PUC Review, then Public Comment period, then Decision.
Vermont §248 Certificate of Public Good process — applies to generation and transmission infrastructure, not to data-center load directly
4Environmental context
Water and energy: what the national record shows
U.S. DOE / NREL — public domain
Vermont-specific water-use figures for a hypothetical facility aren't independently corroborated, so we don't state them here as fact.What the national record does confirm:
5The contrast
What good looks like: community-first technology
The case against extractive data centers isn't "against technology."It's against technology that takes your community's power, water, and land — giving nothing back and hiding how it works.
6The grid
Vermont's grid — the facts
You just read how this could hit your bills and your water. Here are the numbers, with sources. Vermont's grid is small — so one giant facility changes it for everyone.
These figures carry two or more independent sources.They all say the same thing: Vermont's grid is small. Any large new load reshapes it for every ratepayer.
~880 MW
Vermont statewide peak electric demand
Vermont Dept. of Public Service, 2026 Annual Energy Report
+7.5%
GMP rate increase effective Oct 1, 2026
PUC Case 26-0096-TF (confirmed)
~$30M
Estimated grid hookup cost that stopped the St. Albans proposal, 2025
VTDigger, 2026-02-24
~5 MW
Vermont's current total data-center electric load — three small Chittenden Co. facilities
VTDigger, 2026-02-24 · Vermont Public
One campus vs. the entire state — a scale comparison
One campus vs. the entire state — a scale comparison
Category
Value (MW)
VT current data-center load (~5 MW)
5
Single large hyperscale campus (illustrative — 100s of MW typical)
300
Vermont statewide peak demand (~880 MW)
880
Vermont statewide peak: Vermont Dept. of Public Service, 2026 Annual Energy Report. Current VT data-center load (~5 MW): VTDigger, 2026-02-24. Single hyperscale campus figure (300 MW) is ILLUSTRATIVE — large AI campus interconnection requests have ranged from 100 MW to 500+ MW nationally; no specific facility is represented.
Action Playbooks
Nine ways to act — ordered from easiest to most sustained
Each playbook is a real out-of-state win, re-aimed to a Vermont mechanism. Start at Playbook 1. Each step makes the next one easier.
At a glance
Compare all nine tactics
Each row is a full playbook below. Find your entry point, then read the card.
Nine playbooks comparison — effort level, timeline, and who each tactic is best suited for
#
Tactic
Effort
Timeline
Best for
1
Email your real decision-maker
Low
10 min
Any resident
2
Write a Letter to the Editor naming H.727
Low
30 min
Any resident
3
File a Vermont Public Records Act request
Low
~1 hour
Any resident
4
Show up at Town Meeting and warn an article
Medium
Days–weeks
A small core team
5
Ask your selectboard to adopt an interim bylaw
Medium
Weeks
Organizers with board relationship
6
Write data centers into your town's zoning
Medium
Months
Organizers + Planning Commission
7
Take party status in Act 250 review
High
Months
Committed resident or org
8
Intervene in the PUC §248 docket
High
Months
Organizers; counsel helpful
9
Revive H.727 — campaign for re-introduction
High
Session-long
Organized coalition
Playbooks 1–9
The nine playbooks
1Playbook 1:
Email your real decision-maker
10 min
In other states, one constituent email proving "I'm a local voter and I'm watching" moved officials to take a public position.
Vermont steps
Find your decision-maker
Use legislature.vermont.gov/people to get your House Rep and Senator (for H.727 revival). Use sos.vermont.gov/elections/town-clerks to find your town clerk (for local siting).
Aim your email at the right body
State policy ask (revive H.727) → email your legislators.
Local siting matter → email the town clerk, Planning Commission, or Development Review Board — not your legislator. The town body decides siting, not Montpelier.
Use the Vermont-aimed template on the Actions page
Add one sentence in your own words. Include your town and ZIP to prove you're a constituent. Then send.
2Playbook 2:
Write a Letter to the Editor naming H.727
30 min
Letters to the editor are the cheapest earned-media lever — they reach decision-makers and neighbors at once.
Vermont steps
Pick one point
For example: "The Governor's veto left Vermont with no data-center law." One clear argument lands harder than three.
Write 150–200 words
Open with why a neighbor should care.
Tie it to a recent VTDigger, Vermont Public, or local paper article for placement odds.
Name your target: your legislator (revive H.727) or your selectboard (adopt interim bylaws).
Submit to the opinion editor
Email the opinion editor. Paste in the body — do not attach a file. Find a ready-to-customize template on the Actions page.
3Playbook 3:
File a Vermont Public Records Act request
~1 hour · template provided
In Wisconsin, public-records law forced Microsoft to disclose water-use data it had claimed as a trade secret. Opacity broke under the law.
Vermont steps (1 V.S.A. §§315–320)
Identify the records officer
Town clerk for local records. Agency records officer for state agency records.
Email a short, specific request
Name the records and date range. Cite the Vermont Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. §§315–320. Use the copy-paste template on the Actions page.
Track the clock
Substantive response required within 3 business days.
Any extension must be in writing and is limited to 10 additional business days.
Challenge "trade secret" withholding
If energy or water data is withheld as a trade secret under §317(c)(9), demand segregation and release of non-exempt portions plus the specific factual basis. A bare "trade secret" label is not self-executing.
Appeal if denied
Appeal in writing to the agency head (5-business-day decision), then Superior Court. The agency bears the burden; attorney's fees are recoverable if you substantially prevail.
4Playbook 4:
Show up at Town Meeting and warn an article
Days to weeks
A local body in DeKalb County, Georgia passed a 100-day moratorium to study a project. Vermont has a stronger tradition: Town Meeting direct democracy backed by statute.
Vermont steps (Vermont has no operative county government — go to your town)
Contact your town clerk
The town clerk keeps the warnings and identifies the Selectboard, Planning Commission, and Development Review Board.
Force an article onto Town Meeting yourself
Draft the article text.
Collect signatures from 5% of registered voters — name, signature, and address.
File with the town clerk at least 47 days before the meeting (17 V.S.A. §2642).
Turn out neighbors to decide it on the floor
Organize carpools, reminders, and a clear "ask" for the meeting.
5Playbook 5:
Ask your selectboard to adopt an interim bylaw
Weeks · the Vermont moratorium
A moratorium buys time to write real rules before a developer can lock in approvals under existing zoning.
Vermont steps (24 V.S.A. §4415)
Ask the Selectboard — not a citizen petition
Ask the Selectboard to adopt an interim bylaw under 24 V.S.A. §4415. This is a board action, not a direct citizen petition.
Pair it with a planning study request
§4415 requires an active planning effort. Ask the board to simultaneously commission a data-center planning study or bylaw update.
Turn residents out for the public hearing
The board adopts after one warned public hearing. Your job: fill that room.
Use the window to push permanent bylaws
The interim bylaw lasts up to 2 years (plus a 1-year extension). Use that window to drive permanent data-center bylaws through §4441/§4442.
6Playbook 6:
Write data centers into your town's zoning
Months
Prince William County, Virginia passed zoning that confined data centers to industrial-zoned areas only.
Vermont steps (24 V.S.A. §4414(3))
Bring a proposal to the Planning Commission
Propose making data centers a conditional use under strict standards — or limit them to an industrial-only district. Under 24 V.S.A. §4414(3), conditional use must not cause undue adverse effect on community-facility capacity, area character, or traffic.
Include Act 250 criteria in the conditional-use standards
A town may adopt Act 250 criteria into its conditional-use review, adding water, energy, and aesthetics standards.
Testify at warned hearings
Planning Commission warned hearing.
Selectboard adoption hearing.
Know the adoption timeline
Board adopts (effective 21 days later) or warns it to ballot. To defend a board-adopted bylaw against repeal, know the §4442 process.
7Playbook 7:
Take party status in Act 250 review
Months
Act 250 is a statewide environmental review where residents can question, rebut, and appeal a large project — but through party status, not open online comment.
Vermont steps
Watch for the public notice for your district
Find your District Environmental Commission (one of nine) at act250.vermont.gov.
File a Party Status Petition before the deadline
Name the specific criteria you'll contest: Criterion 1 (water pollution), Criterion 8 (aesthetics/light), Criterion 9 (energy/soils), Criterion 10 (town/regional-plan conformance).
Participate in the hearing fully
Present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and keep your party status to the end to preserve appeal rights.
Appeal if aggrieved
Appeal within ~30 days to the Environmental Division (de novo review, your criteria only). Engaging your Regional Planning Commission and town Planning Commission early is critical — they are automatic parties and Criterion 10 turns on their plans.
8Playbook 8:
Intervene in the PUC §248 docket for power infrastructure
Months · counsel helpful
The data-center building goes through Act 250 and zoning. The dedicated power infrastructure — a substation, line, or on-site generation — triggers PUC §248 review (30 V.S.A. §248). That's where the ratepayer-cost argument goes on the record.
Vermont steps
Find the docket
Go to puc.vermont.gov → Public Participation → ePUC. Search by company, town, or case number.
Watch the scheduling order for the intervention deadline
The petitioner must give 45-day advance notice. The scheduling order sets the intervention deadline.
Attend the public hearing
Public comment at PUC hearings requires no party status. Show up in the host community.
File a motion to intervene for full party status
File through ePUC before the deadline, stating your stake: abutter, environmental interest, or ratepayer.
Lean on the Department of Public Service and ANR
Both are automatic parties. Put the ratepayer-cost and environmental arguments to them — they can carry the analysis with far more staff capacity.
9Playbook 9:
Revive H.727 — put the mandate back to a vote
A session-long campaign
The policy already commands the votes. It passed both chambers once. The bill text exists. The job is to re-introduce it next session and close the gap.
Vermont steps
Build a coalition
CLF, VNRC, VPIRG, town officials — small core team, clear goal, public meetings.
Ask your legislators to re-introduce H.727's framework next session
~20 MW trigger for PUC review of the data center itself.
PUC-approved large-load equity contract insulating ratepayers from infrastructure costs.
Quarterly public reporting of energy and water use.
Limits on fossil-fuel backup generation.
On-site renewables requirement.
Closed-loop cooling and PFAS monitoring.
Public Records Act carve-out so energy and water data cannot hide behind "trade secret."
Route to the right committees
House Energy & Digital Infrastructure / Senate Natural Resources & Energy (heard H.727), Government Operations (records carve-out), Ways & Means (incentives).
In testimony, cite the demonstrated supermajority
Senate 26–3, near-unanimous House. Only the override math (83 of 90 votes) fell short. The mandate is real.
Next step
Ready to act?
Start with Playbook 1 — a 10-minute email. Use the Actions page to find your decision-makers and copy the template.
Returns your House Rep + Senator with email and phone. Use the email template below for the H.727 revival ask.
Card 2 — Town officials
Use when: asking about local siting, interim bylaws, or zoning.
Start with your town clerk.The clerk identifies your Selectboard, Planning Commission, and Development Review Board, and keeps the warnings and records.
Public comment at PUC hearings requires no party status. Intervention for full party status requires a motion before the deadline.
Step 2
Email templates — copy, personalize, send
Add one sentence in your own words. Include your town and ZIP to prove you're a constituent. Then send.
Tip: the moment you tap Copy, switch to your email, paste, and send. Acting in one sitting turns reading into a sent message.
Template A — Legislator
Send to your House Rep and Senator via legislature.vermont.gov/people
Subject: Please bring back H.727 — Vermont still has no data-center law
Dear [Representative/Senator Name],
I'm a constituent in [Town], ZIP [#####]. I'm writing because the Legislature passed H.727 this year by an overwhelming, tripartisan margin — 26–3 in the Senate and a near-unanimous House voice vote — and after the Governor's veto, the override fell only about seven votes short. That left Vermont with no data-center-specific law at all, even as federal rules move to fast-track these projects.
Please commit to re-introducing H.727's framework next session: a ~20 MW trigger, a PUC-approved contract that insulates ratepayers from data-center infrastructure costs, public quarterly reporting of energy and water use, limits on fossil-fuel backup, on-site renewables, and water and PFAS protections. Vermonters already pay roughly 28% above the national average for electricity and our grid has little slack — we can't afford to absorb these costs by default.
The votes for this policy already exist. Please help finish the job.
Thank you,
[Name], [Town], Vermont
Template B — Town
Send to your Selectboard and/or Planning Commission
Subject: Data centers and our town — please act before a proposal arrives
Dear [Selectboard / Planning Commission, Town of ____],
I'm a resident of [Town]. Vermont has no data-center-specific law right now, and a single large facility could rival a significant share of the state's entire electric peak (~880 MW, Vermont DPS, 2026). I'm asking our town to get ahead of this while we still can: please (1) consider an interim bylaw under 24 V.S.A. § 4415 paired with a planning study, and (2) review whether our zoning should treat data centers as a tightly-conditioned use or confine them to an industrial district under 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3).
I'd appreciate knowing when this can be warned for a public hearing, and I'll turn out neighbors to support it.
Thank you,
[Name], [Town], Vermont
Template C — LTE
Letter to the Editor (≤200 words)
[Recent local headline] reminds us that Vermont still has no law governing data centers. This isn't for lack of trying: this year our Legislature passed H.727 — one of the strongest data-center bills in the country — by 26–3 in the Senate and a near-unanimous House. The Governor vetoed it, and the override missed by about seven votes. So the protections our own representatives overwhelmingly voted for simply don't exist today.
That matters because Vermonters already pay around 28% more for electricity than the average American, our grid is small enough that one big facility is a system-scale event, and federal rules are now built to fast-track these projects. The St. Albans proposal collapsed in 2025 only because a single grid hookup would have cost about $30 million — our thin grid, not any law, was the brake.
We can fix that. Ask [Legislator] to bring H.727 back next session, and ask our selectboard to study local safeguards now. The votes are there. Let's finish the job.
[Name], [Town]
Step 3
Public Records Act request template (1 V.S.A. §§315–320)
Use this to request energy use, water use, NDAs, and any correspondence between your town and a data-center developer. The Act requires a response within 3 business days. Any extension must be in writing and is limited to 10 additional business days.
To: [Town Clerk / Agency Records Officer], [Municipality/Agency]
Date: [date]
Under the Vermont Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. §§ 315–320, I request copies of the following public records:
[Specific records — e.g., "all correspondence, applications, memoranda of understanding, and engineering or utility studies between [Town] and any data-center developer or its agents, including any non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements, from [start date] to present."]
Please provide records in electronic form. I understand the Act requires a response promptly — within 3 business days — to produce the records or certify any claimed exemption, with any extension limited to 10 additional business days and stated in writing.
If any portion is withheld as a trade secret under 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(9), please segregate and release all non-exempt portions and state the specific factual basis for each withheld element. The Act is liberally construed toward disclosure and the agency bears the burden of justifying any withholding.
Please notify me of any fees before incurring them.
Thank you,
[Name], [Town], Vermont — [email/phone]
If denied: appeal in writing to the agency head (5-business-day decision), then Superior Court in your county or Washington County. Attorney's fees are recoverable if you substantially prevail.
The federal backdrop — and why Vermont's own levers matter more because of it
The usual ways to slow large industrial projects are being weakened at the federal level. That makes Vermont's own tools more important, not less — Act 250, PUC §248 (the state's power-project permit process), Town Meeting, and the push to revive H.727.
Five federal actions affecting Vermont data-center oversight — status and Vermont impact
#
Federal action
Status
Vermont impact
1
CEQ final rule — NEPA implementing regulations rescinded
EO 14318 — "Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure" (July 23, 2025)
4Signed / Verified
Federal funding withheld from Vermont's clean-energy programs
$62.5M
EPA "Solar for All" grant terminated (August–September 2025)
vtdigger.org · ago.vermont.gov
~$5.2M
DOE cuts to UVM (~$3.4M) and BETA Technologies (~$1.8M)
vtdigger.org
$5M
Burlington EV-charging award frozen
vtdigger.org · cbsnews.com
5Reach Legally Untested
Dec 11, 2025 AI Executive Order + DOJ AI Litigation Task Force
Bottom line
What the federal backdrop means for Vermont advocates
Vermont's own levers carry more weight, not less — Act 250, PUC §248, and Town Meeting are Vermont law and do not depend on federal NEPA or permitting timelines.
Highest-leverage actions
Use Vermont's existing review tools now
Act 250 party status (Playbook 7) and PUC §248 intervention (Playbook 8) are the primary levers for any project with a Vermont footprint. None depend on federal permitting timelines.
Revive H.727 next legislative session
The bill text is ready. The supermajority voted for it once. Seven votes decide whether Vermont closes the gap — or leaves the door open to the next proposal.
Sen. Bernie Sanders: federal AI data-center legislation in parallel with Vermont's H.727
U.S. Congress / public domain
Sanders is Ranking Member — the lead senator from the minority party — on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee in the 119th Congress (2025–26). His bill (S.4214) and committee work on AI's labor and energy impacts run parallel to Vermont's H.727. Both target the same 20 MW threshold. Both aim to shield ratepayers, communities, and the grid from the unchecked buildout of AI data centers.
Two parallel rails converging on a shared-goal box. The Federal rail carries S.4214 — the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act, introduced by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez on 2026-03-25. The Vermont rail carries H.727 — the Vermont 20 MW data-center framework, passed by the legislature, vetoed on 2026-05-28, override attempt failed 83 to 52. Both rails converge on the shared goal: ratepayer protection, grid stability, and community and environmental safeguards.
S.4214 (federal) and H.727 (Vermont) use the same 20 MW threshold and converge on the same protective goals — ratepayer protection, grid stability, and community approval.
1Introduced 2026-03-25 · S.4214
"Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act" — the direct federal parallel
22025–2026
Sanders AI-accountability record — chronological
Completed:
Oct 2025
HELP Committee report: "The Big Tech Oligarchs' War Against Workers"
As Ranking Member, Sanders released a Senate HELP Committee staff report projecting — as a disputed modeled estimate, not a settled empirical finding — that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million U.S. jobs over the next decade.
Completed:
2026-03-25
S.4214 introduced — "Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act"
Filed with House companion by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. Referred to Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee. Targets the 20 MW threshold — matching Vermont's H.727.
Completed:
2026-04-16
Fox News op-ed: "Artificial intelligence is coming for the working class. We must fight back."
Sanders argued that AI automation's economic displacement requires structural worker and community protections — the direct rationale behind legislation such as S.4214.
Pending:
2026-06-18
"American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act" proposed — no bill number assigned yet
Sanders proposed a one-time tax on large AI firms to fund a citizen dividend. No bill number has been assigned as of publication. Do not cite a number.
Artificial intelligence is coming for the working class. We must fight back.
Sen. Bernie Sanders — op-ed title, Fox News, 2026-04-16. The pull quote above is the verbatim published title of the op-ed; the body text of the article was not independently verified and is not quoted here.
Why I built Feed.
Putting the tools in the community's hands
As More Perfect Union’s reporting documents, a small circle of billionaires and tech CEOs is building software that increasingly runs government — a shift the reporting argues answers to shareholders, not voters. Palantir, co-founded by Peter Thiel, markets itself as an “operating system” for government. OpenGov, co-founded by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, sells budgeting and data systems public agencies run on. In my view — and as that reporting makes the case — these are part of a longer effort the reporting traces to Thiel and his network: replacing accountable, democratic government with privatized, automated, corporate-owned systems.
In my view, this isn’t separate from data centers — it’s the same movement. The reporting connects the same investors backing privatized-government projects to the push for unrestricted data-center growth. Who owns this page’s fight and who owns our digital infrastructure, I’d argue, are the same question.
Feed. is my answer. If AI and data tools are going to reshape how communities get help, communities should own those tools — not rent them from the corporations automating us out of the decision. Feed. is community-owned mutual-aid technology: the capabilities the giants sell to governments, put back in the hands of the people who use them.
The model already exists — it’s called a co-op. Across the country, people are building cooperatively-owned alternatives that cut out the billionaire middleman without cutting quality. As More Perfect Union’s reporting on the cooperative model documents, Drivers Coop Colorado pays its driver-owners two to three times what Uber does on the same ride, at the same or lower fares; and Nebraska ranchers built their own meatpacking plant after a corporate processor left them stranded. It works for technology too — Wikipedia, governed by its own community, has stayed free and community-run for fifteen years, while, in my view, many billionaire-owned platforms have gotten worse. Feed. runs on that principle: co-op-style, community-owned infrastructure we build and govern together — so meeting our own needs never depends on a billionaire.
