An act relating to aesthetics review for new energy projects

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Chris Morrow

The bill removes aesthetics from the PUC’s criteria for a certificate of public good, narrowing review to environmental, health, safety, soils, and greenhouse gas impacts.

Read first time and referred to the Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure

Bill Summary: H.651 (2025-2026) – Vermont

Purpose and intent

The bill proposes to remove aesthetic review from the process for obtaining a certificate of public good (CPG) for new energy projects.

Specifically, it changes the criteria the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) uses to evaluate proposed in-state energy facilities, by eliminating aesthetics as an adverse impact to be considered.

Key provisions and changes

Amends 30 V.S.A. § 248(b):
Before the PUC issues a certificate of public good, it must find that the purchase, investment, or construction of an in-state facility will not have an undue adverse effect on:

aesthetics
historic sites
air and water purity
the natural environment
the use of natural resources
public health and safety
with due consideration to other statutory criteria (10 V.S.A. §§ 1424a(d) and 6086(a)(1)–(8) and (9)(K))
and impacts to primary agricultural soils (as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 6001) and greenhouse gas impacts

Effective removal: Aesthetics would no longer be part of the adverse effects the PUC must assess for state energy projects seeking a CPG.

Who/what is affected

Affect on regulatory review: The PUC’s evaluation criteria for new in-state energy facilities would exclude aesthetics as a factor, potentially streamlining or altering considerations for siting and permitting.

Facilities affected: In-state gas and electric purchases, investments, and facilities undergoing CPG review under 30 V.S.A. § 248.

Other considerations retained: The bill preserves other listed criteria (historic sites, air/water purity, natural environment, natural resource use, public health and safety, agricultural soils, and greenhouse gas impacts) and other statutory factors outlined in the cited sections.

Procedural and timeline aspects

Introduced by: Rep. Christopher Morrow of Weston

Committee reference: House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure

Status: Read first time and referred to committee (as of January 13, 2026)

Effective date: July 1, 2026

Practical implications

The bill would potentially shorten or simplify the permitting process for new energy projects by removing aesthetic considerations from the CPG evaluation, shifting emphasis to other environmental, health, safety, agricultural, soil, and greenhouse gas criteria.

Stakeholders (environmental groups, planning organizations, utility applicants, and local communities) may re-evaluate project feasibility, siting, and community impact analyses in light of the removed aesthetic criterion.

If you need, I can provide a plain-language comparison of the current § 248(b) criteria versus the amended version, or draft a brief stakeholder briefing outlining potential impacts by sector.