SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-03-21 1:00pm

[Speaker 0 ]: We are live on YouTube. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alrighty. Welcome, everybody. It's Friday, March twenty fourth. This is the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee, and we are here right now to, take a little bit more testimony on s fifty, an act relating to increasing the size of solar net metering projects that qualify for expedited guidance registration. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Berry. Chris Mora Wyndham Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, California two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. [Dara Torre]: Derek Moray, Washington two. [Laura Sibilia]: Graham Glubner, champion thirteen, Burlington. Laura Sebelia, winning two. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Jack Locker, committee assistant. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. John? [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: John Brabant from Monitor Clean Environment. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alrighty. Peter. For the record. [Speaker 5 ]: Hi. Peter Sterling, director of Renewal Energy. Thank you so much. It's been a few minutes on your Friday to let you discuss. What do you mean? [Chair Kathleen James]: We have until two. Oh [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: my god. [Chair Kathleen James]: I mean, we don't have to have until two, but that Okay. Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: I just wanna say before I go into my presentation that I heard some questions and comments brought up during, senator Watson's presentation on the bill and Ellen Chukowski's walk through that I think I can answer. I have notes. So Great. How you get to that. And, of course, you're gonna be asking a question more. I'm like, okay. By the way, twenty five is the new fifteen. That's what I've that's literally the most creative thing I've beta person, but coming up with that title, I've made the matrix possible since we I've thought of it over the summer. [Speaker 0 ]: I'm not sure that our twenty five birthday boy [Speaker 6 ]: Oh my god. Sorry. [Speaker 7 ]: Oh my gosh. Who would've thought? [Speaker 5 ]: Alright. Let's jump to that first slide there. First, I just wanna walk through net metering super quick, and I guess this isn't I don't wanna maybe this isn't mansplaining. It's energy nerdsplaining. But I don't know. [Speaker 6 ]: Good. [Speaker 5 ]: Okay. So net metering allows people to generate solar power for their own use and then send extra solar power to the grid from where they live and work. Absolutely. People receive credit on their electric bills for the extra power they generate. About twenty two thousand homes and businesses net metered in are enrolled in the net metering program in Vermont. The twenty twenty four last year's reservoir bill eliminated off-site or virtual net metering as a cost reduction measure. I think that come up in this committee a couple times. And since twenty twenty one, residential net metering customers have paid a fee [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: in [Speaker 5 ]: the form of a negative rate adjuster, which is that chart down to the left there, on the power they use behind the meter. And that's an important concept. That's how the one of the main ways the PUC adjusts net metering compensation every two years. And so what you could see in that chart onto your on the lower left there is that seven times in the last eight years, the PUC has reduced that compensation that Vermonters received for net metering. And some of that is justified in that the price of deploying solar has come down. But what you could see on the table to the right is, or at least according to my opinion, would be that they've adjusted the breakdown so much that we're seeing fewer and fewer. Vermonters net metering, a sixteen percent decrease in net metering since twenty eighteen and twenty seven percent since the post COVID high in twenty twenty one. [Chair Kathleen James]: Can we stop before you go on? Sure. Is that are you done with that slide? [Speaker 5 ]: I have one more. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Okay. That's fine. [Speaker 5 ]: Okay. So this morning, I heard from representative Campbell about a comment about what happens with the recs from net metering. So for on-site net metering, the residential stuff, if a customer, if an individual wanted to keep those racks, they would pay a fee of four cents a kilowatt hour, which, let's say, you're using a bunch of solar. You have, like, an EV. It's, like, four or five hundred dollars a year. So almost no custom almost no individual ever keeps their reps. They sell them, essentially, to the utility. The developer on the residential stuff really has nothing to do with it. If it was off-site net meter, the developer sometimes is involved. But if you're putting Solr where you live, you your developer really has nothing to do with it. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So where is that agreement happen? Is that [Speaker 5 ]: It happens when you sign up with the Let's say With the developer? With the developer. The developer gives you the form and says supposed to explain to you. You have a choice Yep. About whether to keep your racks or not. I advise you to sell your racks to the utility so you get a cheaper rate. But there are some people who have it's important to own those racks so they can legally say they are a hundred percent solar. Yeah. Can't legally say that without owning racks. Almost no residential customer keeps the racks. Okay. Good. Good. Good. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: But it's different. We're we're treating down. It's in the contract. [Speaker 5 ]: In every contract. That's right. And there are mistakes that have been made, which is why I think SSP is trying [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: to address. Yep. Okay. So now I'm done with this slide. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So I have a Yes. I have a one on one question. So unless we quantify it by saying we're talking about virtual off-site net metering or, you [Laura Sibilia]: know On-site? [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. So this bill and the net metering that we're talking about in s fifty and today is entirely residential scale? [Speaker 5 ]: Yes. Yes. [Chair Kathleen James]: This is you and me So putting solar on your [Speaker 5 ]: very small business. So you could be, like, a pretty small business that doesn't use an an enormous amount of electricity in their business. Under twenty five k w is ninety percent of the time is gonna be a a Raymont family looking to electrify, get EVs and heat pumps. Now there may be a business that doesn't use a ton of electricity, like a law law firm, you know, wants to have twenty five kw to be all their way, electrical heat pump needs. But you would never have a commercial application. Any kind of commercial application where you're using a light piston, you would blow past twenty five k w in mix. So this is really all I would say ninety percent of these, ninety five percent of these are people putting something in their backyard. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. And we had another question come up, and then we just haven't gotten there yet. But in in s fifty, are we talking about we had a question about it specifically mentioned ground mounted. [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. That's all. [Speaker 7 ]: That was Are we gonna [Chair Kathleen James]: get into that there? Okay. So we were like, it's this also rooftop or, you know, trying to understand exactly what this bill applies to. [Speaker 5 ]: The law in Vermont is that you can put up your a five hundred k w system on your roof and go through the fast application process. Five hundred k w is the limit. I mean, that is huge. I mean, that's, like, three acres of solar panels. So you'd have to be a massive big box store or something to even wanna come close to that. But up to five hundred k w on the rooftop gets the fast application, and anything over fifteen on the ground has to go through the long process currently. [Speaker 6 ]: Say that one more time. So up to five hundred [Speaker 5 ]: kilowatt hour roof. On a roof, and that and the roof does not include a canopy. That's considered a ground mountain. Right. I was yeah. I I just wanna make it clear that you couldn't [Speaker 7 ]: build a you can build a new roof, but you could build a new barn. Correct. [Speaker 5 ]: If you built a barn and put it on the barn, that would be a That's a roof style. So it's not Not a canopy is not necessarily old roof. Correct. [Speaker 7 ]: I thought at one point it was an existing roof. No. No. [Speaker 5 ]: You can you know, if you were to go to a brand new barn or a brand new big box door and you wanna put two hundred fifty k w on that, you would get to use the FAST application process up to five hundred k w. Again, that's, like, three acres. That's, like, a massive solar array. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. And s fifty doesn't contemplate or get into that. Nope. We're talking about ground mounted. [Speaker 5 ]: What we're trying to go with s fifty is to make it easier for Vermonters who wanna book solar in their backyard. Mhmm. And they can only put it on the ground for whatever reason. They don't have a good roof or old roof that can't hold weight. They wanna put it on the ground in their backyard to make it a little easier for them to to do that. It has it doesn't we don't need to touch the rooftop process because there's no problem with the rooftop process. [Speaker 7 ]: What's the advantage of the fast track? Oh, we're going to [Speaker 5 ]: great details. Yeah. Probably too much detail, to be honest. [Speaker 0 ]: Uh-huh. Remind us that senator Watson testified that due to the evolution of the technology, you can now a twenty five k array is the same size. Yep. That in the case. [Speaker 5 ]: You got that. Okay. Correct. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Okay. Okay. [Laura Sibilia]: Oh, Mark Campbell. I have a basic question. [Speaker 5 ]: I love that you're after they're asking me all the questions that I actually know how to answer later in the month that I really [Laura Sibilia]: want to ask. Translate [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. Let's say, twenty five k w to kilowatt hours per year. Okay. I do that later in the Okay. In the in [Speaker 5 ]: the slide too. So I yeah. I'll tell you now. We'll see how it I got fifteen thousand. Oh, that's good. I had eighteen thousand. What? We must be using different capacity. [Laura Sibilia]: I'm sorry. [Speaker 7 ]: I was rotating fifteen [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: degrees bar. [Speaker 7 ]: Twenty five days to [Speaker 5 ]: I used four I I used a fourteen percent capacity factor on a fixed ground, non bifacial. Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: We have beyond date. [Speaker 5 ]: Alright. I used the one that department public service uses. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Back to go to, you know, twenty fourteen. [Speaker 5 ]: Okay. Twenty in twenty fourteen, act ninety nine established that ground mount arrays under fifteen kilowatt AC use a quick registration process while ground mount arrays between fifteen and one hundred and fifty kilowatt must go through a lengthier application process. So I have two pictures there. That's a on the left, there's a one fifty. [Laura Sibilia]: That's right. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: And on the [Speaker 5 ]: right, there's a backyard fifteen that would have to those two projects of that size would have to go through the same multi month, many thousand dollar process. And that does not seem like the same projects. So representative Campbell, this that's the earth. Watch on the next slide. Modern solar panels can produce twenty eight percent more solar power using almost the same amount of land. So when this law was passed, your typical residential solar panel is about two hundred fifty to two hundred and ninety watts. Now, because of the efficiencies, folks can put up four hundred eighty five watt panels. So we are putting could put a lot more solar much more efficient solar panels in the same spot. So if you look at the the pre twenty seventeen array using those older three hundred twenty watt panels, that's a hundred eight feet and change bound by thirteen feet. And that's a a a fifteen k w. And then the new ones with the four gs eight five watt panels can go are going a hundred and nine feet, so that's a foot longer, and thirteen eleven. So that's another foot longer, foot wider, but producing twenty eight percent more power in the same physical footprint. So I believe it's fair to say that the same intent of this bill was to limit the land use kind of footprint of these solar arrays. And I think you're largely hewing to that by increasing twenty five gigabit just for the only reason that solar panels are now almost twice as efficient as they were when the law was written in twenty fourteen. Mhmm. You mentioned bifacial. So [Dara Torre]: if you wanted to do that, you end up going over twenty five feet of your [Speaker 5 ]: We I I when when we were thinking when I was talking to rep members and we were conceiving what this you know, we want to make sure we were not creating some land use impacts that were gonna be un not appropriate. So if you're using more than twenty five k w at home, you are you know, that's a lot of solar for most people. I mean, there may come a time we went monorays up to thirty or something, like, the panels got more efficient. But very few people at home, for purely residential reasons, would use more than twenty five kW. When you have a rate bigger than twenty five kW, you're probably using a lot of electricity for something, I guess. [Dara Torre]: So could you have a smaller footprint? Yes. [Speaker 5 ]: You would have a small yeah. That's right. You would have just have a smaller footprint. Because you really and, you know, with net metering, when you generate more credits than you can use, you don't get money for them. They expire after a year. So you've just been given the utility. So the developer who's helping you to install your solar would probably would always say, how much power do you think you're using now? Will you use are you getting EV? Are your kids moving back in, and you're gonna leave lights on all the time? You know, they go through all that stuff, and you'd size it for the right way for what you would need. [Speaker 7 ]: You're gonna go to the legislature. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: It's [Speaker 5 ]: not. So, again, again, twenty five k w to me is the is is probably the reasonable limit that you would reasonably expect on a house that is electrifying everything to probably get to. Could you explain by by face? By the way, [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: I'm sure. Is that Yeah. Totally. I didn't [Speaker 5 ]: most solar panels, they're cheaper. They just generate power on one side, the side face and the the sun. Bifacial have it on two sides. You can generate solar power from the body panel. From the reflective. [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: You can rotate them and stuff like that. [Speaker 7 ]: Alright. But you Pretty cool. Get a little bit of reflection reflection off Totally. No. A medium or [Speaker 5 ]: or or So some people use those to make just it more efficient. [Speaker 0 ]: I presume the the limits are the same whether you're doing a fixed array or whether you're doing tractors. [Speaker 5 ]: Hundred percent. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. That that point five k w is the size limit. What we think is reasonable again for what a purse a family would be using at home for their residential is not converting or industrial options. So I think this came up a little while during the walk group. The difference between the application and the registration process, I'll let you all read these. But I think you'll just jump to the bottom two for the application process, which again is one for the bigger arrays. It's usually about four months, and it costs between five and twenty thousand dollars to complete that with consultants and the the permitting you have to do. And the registration process, the fast one, is I mean, it's usually in less than fifteen days. I know we my people would say it's almost never they said never more than thirty days and there's no additional costs. And, again, if you're a homeowner and you wanna electrify and you want more power, like, you're not gonna wait months and months and spend extra thousands. You're just you know, the stats I'll go through later, just you cap it at fifteen. You don't build the extra ten k w because it's just too much money. It's not worth the hassle. [Chair Kathleen James]: So here on the left Mhmm. So that's the full on certificate of public good process? [Speaker 5 ]: That's right. [Laura Sibilia]: Okay. So application Just to be clear, both [Speaker 5 ]: of these need a certificate of public good. Okay. One they're both regulated by section two forty eight, but one is just an application that the PUC has developed for larger projects to fully understand the scope and all that stuff, like those that one fifty that was in the opening slide. The registration process is part of this is a CPG technically. It's just a faster way to get to it. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So full application versus the expedited registration. [Speaker 5 ]: That's right. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: For a [Speaker 0 ]: clip, you Just for completeness, what's the difference if [Speaker 5 ]: you go over a hundred fifty today per gram amount? There's a different application where you're notifying. I think I have to look into the exact items. I'm not gonna explain that. But you have to do more work, more more notifying landowners, more more permitting, more more things like that. You have [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: to answer more questions. That's [Speaker 5 ]: it. Alright. So representative Samuels? Oh, you have a question? [Speaker 7 ]: Yeah. So Yep. Used to be a distribution engineer. So When when does the utility get involved so that they can have the system protection? Excellent question. They in [Speaker 5 ]: in both in the past registration process, they get a notification immediately, and they have up to ten days. And if they decide they can't interconnect it, it's not safe, it's too costly, they can still stop it or they need one additional notification. Initial. Okay. There there has this right. There's nothing in this touches the abilities utilities' ability to stop a project they feel they cannot connect safely or properly. I think that would Okay. So just to give you a scope of some of the next slide, sample electric annual electric consumption in a modern home. Your average load, and this is just someone who doesn't have heat pumps and doesn't do EVs, and about sixty seven hundred kilowatt hours a year. And you can see from some of the lists that I put out there, if you add to that sixty seven hundred, excuse me, a heat pump and a couple of EVs, you would blow past the, the eighteen thousand kilowatt hours of a of a fifteen k w system pretty quick. So a fifteen k w, give or take, is eighteen thousand kilowatt hours. So you would get past that eighteen thousand super quick with some heat pumps, EVs, and things like that. And I thought this was a pretty cool stat at the bottom that we came up with. Building a twenty five kW instead of a fifteen kW produces enough extra electricity you get from the same physical footprint to power a Ford Lightning for over twenty five thousand miles. So it's real extra solar. This this this would make a difference. Now it's a lot of electricity. Cool. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Well, see see, you're saying a fifteen k w. Well, the system produces around eighteen thousand. Yeah. Okay. I thought you said twenty five times. [Speaker 5 ]: No. No. Eighteen roughly eighteen thousand kilowatt. Okay. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: So so sorry. I'm still on the slide. So, since we're not we're not in agreement, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding and then we're not blowing blowing through stuff. So alright. So the average residential load is sixty seven hundred a year. And then Right. [Speaker 5 ]: But I just wanted to be clear. Like, that average really does you know, averages can be a can represent a lot of things. Right? Like, here, it's a million dollars higher than a dollar. Our average income is five hundred thousand. That's as immediate, you know, working out so good. No. But the that that that average really does represents a a household that does not have any kind of extra electric use, like heat pumps. The average is low. It's really just someone running refrigerators, lights, you know, stuff like that. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So that's the average load. And then the stats you're showing below are [Speaker 5 ]: How much each of those new technologies would add to that average load. [Chair Kathleen James]: Would add. Okay. So the total would be [Speaker 5 ]: Well, I mean, let's say you want to do the heat pumps for your your your your house. Right? Yeah. You're probably putting up fifteen thousand k w. You'd need another fifteen thousand kilowatt hours. [Laura Sibilia]: Mhmm. [Speaker 5 ]: So you have the fifteen thousand to to the sixty seven hundred, and you've blown way past the eighteen thousand that a fifteen k w could generate. That's what I'm saying. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: The fifteen k w number isn't on there. I probably should've put it on there. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. And the twenty five k w provides how much? [Speaker 5 ]: About thirty thousand [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: kilowatt hours. That's not on there. [Speaker 5 ]: No. I shouldn't have dropped that in hindsight. I just have a no. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: Well, you y'all are asking a lot more good questions in the senate, David. Okay. I liked it. [Chair Kathleen James]: We're sort of understanders. So alright. So twenty five k, which is what we're talking about in this bill [Speaker 5 ]: Yep. It's about thirty thousand. [Chair Kathleen James]: Is gonna produce about thirty thousand. [Speaker 5 ]: So what hours? And a fifteen k is about eighteen thousand. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. And a fifteen k equals eighteen thousand. So if you wanna put in a twenty five k, you're gonna generate about thirty. So you could add on that, you know, say you've got your average load, and then you've got an EV. We're at ten thousand seven hundred, and then you wanna do a couple more of these things. Alright. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: This just allows you, like I said, I think that the twenty five k to the limit should really allow a Vermonter who wants to electrify to generate the power they need at home. It's a it's a reasonable threshold. Yep. But this is a year round [Speaker 7 ]: usage. And in the in the present net metering, if you over generate in one month, you get the average rate for one credit. Am I correct that that's being reduced at all? That so that your the differential let's take the Green Mountain power rated twenty cents a kilowatt hour. Gotcha. You you store you store using the utility batteries or the utility as a battery. Right. And you only get fifteen cent credit. Right. So when you buy back in the winter, you're paying the twenty cents. And what about the energy efficiency charge? Just over a penny. We're talking about a [Speaker 5 ]: a couple different things then. So so when when you generate solar, you get a rate. Every two years, the PUC adjusts the net metering rate up or down. Usually, it's steady. Right. New to to, yeah, to a new number. Usually so but when you sign that contract, right, you're locking in you're locking in a certain rate for ten years with the adjusters you paid for. Let's say right now, I would lock in if I had to get it today, I would lock in whatever the blended rate is plus whatever the adjuster, the PUC said, need to happen. Right now, it's four cents off. Right? If you keep the rent. No. No. No. It's four cents off. You keep the rent. And four cents off just for owning the solar, which I'll I'll explain later why it's important to understand. It's a great question. What I'm saying is if in two years, the PUC now goes from a four cent adjuster to five cents. I don't I don't pay the five cents. I have a contract for the four cents because I signed up during this the net metering rate, the four cent adjuster. So for monitors, that's what you know, when you sign up for an intermediary, you you get the the certain adjuster. Now the blended rate goes up and down as we know, But the adjusters don't change. So you get a set rate for the adjuster [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: for a ten year period. [Speaker 5 ]: And then after ten years, you your positive adjusters go away. So if you were old school and you were getting paid more for solar, that goes to zero. But when you if, let's say, I had after ten years and I had the four cent adjuster, and in ten years from now, it's eight cents. I don't pay the eight cents. I just go to I I I keep my negative four cents. I don't get the new one. It's only the positive adjusters went away because that made solar, like, that paid a lot. That happened back when I [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: got we can talk about why that happened later. [Speaker 5 ]: But, yes, your adjuster your positive adjusters go away after ten years. Your negative ones stay with you forever. But the POC does adjust those every two years, so a new person coming on would get the new adjusters every two years in the assignment. Clear as mud. We can talk about this more. Hey. I sense I sense the vibe in the room that we might have to walk through this beyond this. Okay. The next [Chair Kathleen James]: Instead of moves fast on everything. We are not the I mean people. [Speaker 5 ]: I mean, they have two committees. They have, like, all those people to listen to back home. You guys y'all get to dig in [Chair Kathleen James]: us. No. We do. It's great. [Speaker 5 ]: They do. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So we're on the cross slide. [Speaker 5 ]: Yep. Okay. And so now we've got potential cost. Even if all hundred twenty nine homeowners who put up a fifteen k w in last year had instead put up a twenty five k w, they were not gonna do, the cost shift, and even using the public service department's highly flawed methodology, which I will go into, would only be fifteen cents a year to the average Vermont household. So let's say everyone who wanted to put up a fifteen went to twenty five. It's only fifteen cents a year, and even that number is overinflated for reasons I will go into on the next slide. And, again, I just have a picture of this is what a seventeen k w looks like. Right? I mean, it's clearly in someone's backyard. My my solar folks, when I asked them about this, they said, almost every single one of these, you could never really afford to trench it, you know, to bury the line from your house more than, like, even two hundred feet would be a lot. Like, there is nobody putting these, like, half a mile in their field way far away. You put this next to your house because it's really expensive to dig that trench. Put it so these are truly in your backyard. This isn't someone owning, you know, five acres that dig in. You know? [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. And so the cost the cost argument here, obviously, is that the bigger the array, the more you're generating, so the bigger a discount that you're getting on that that entering. So that that [Speaker 6 ]: that's where the cost should turns in. [Speaker 5 ]: That's right. Okay. Supposed to caution. [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. No. There [Chair Kathleen James]: No. I know we'll get to that. Just understand the underlying Exactly right. Argument. Right. [Speaker 5 ]: Right. Top line and we'll go into the next. Top line is is net metering enrollees receive higher rate to net meter because of some of the benefits, and that rate is spread out that extra cost that the utility pays to get that net meter power is spread out amongst its whole customer base. And in this case, if you look statewide, it would be, you know, fourteen cents could bring extra caution. And so this is a little this is a little away from the the policy that we're talking about. But I did want to explain about that caution because I think well, I know this committee hasn't talked about net metering yet, and I'm sure you will at some point. But I just I thought it would be a good time to maybe just take a minute to talk about this net metering cost shift and some of the values behind net metering. So I think you had brought up to Senator Watson about the biannual report about how she read about how the department says Netmure's most expensive form of power, which she actually read about is true. But so if quick permission from the Canadian panel. I'm going to this for a minute. You know, it's a little off of what has what has Sure. You saw. Okay. Before we talk before I go into what's on this slide, I just you know, let me just give you an example. Like, a lot of times, we do things because of our values. And here's an example. Right? Values that are not quantifiable. My wife loves books, and I buy her a book every Christmas from the Bearpond bookstore downtown. I like them. They're nice people. But when I if I were to look at my bill for that book, it's twenty percent more than me ordering it on Amazon. That is true. I literally bought that book the most expensive way possible, but there's a value there that I can't really quantify that that bookstore exists in the downtown that I like. But the bill I just looked at my bill on my credit card. It's twenty percent more. I could I chose not to save that twenty percent. If I want there's a value to that bookstore then. I can't quantify. I think net metering come there is something similar to that with net metering in that there are values to Vermonters owning their own solar, having solar where they live that you don't always see. That doesn't show up just on a rate bill. I do I do think there is something similar there. Okay. [Speaker 6 ]: Repsolver? [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So with that being said Yeah. How do you sell that to low income rural communities? Anything? I don't know. [Speaker 5 ]: Well, that their rate, they pay a slightly higher rate Right. So other people can net meter. Well, I think if we go into some of the values, we can we can do that. First of all, I would argue that we should make it more affordable and help low income people [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: own their own solar. I think that would be [Speaker 5 ]: a really important thing to do. So let's [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: and then and then if [Speaker 5 ]: I go through this slide, I think I talk about some of the other good things that happened when we have met meetings. So net metering, you do two things. Right? You have this solar where you live, and let's say your car is plugged in and the sun is shining. You are taking solar right from your roof, and it goes right without touching the grid, it goes right into your car, and that's pulled behind the meter generation. Right? That that's one aspect. The other part is the extra power you export into the grid, and that's what the utility is paying you more money for. Right? So the Department of Public Service calculates the cost shift for net metering, and that's the equation right there. It's lost sales plus above market electricity that the utility pays for. There are two components to this cost shift. Lost sales from utility and the above market electricity costs that the utility pays. And I'll explain what you two would mean. [Speaker 8 ]: I'm I'm just letting that Yeah. Penetrate. Okay. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So the locksmith panel sense. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Just to clarify that. So every interconnected group or group behind the meter panel setup is is is is set up so that it it it feeds the electric load in the house Yep. And satisfies that load before it goes to the back of the room. [Speaker 5 ]: That that's the way they're all set up. Yes. That's right. Okay. So that stuff that goes right into your house is called behind the meter generation. It never touches that meter that goes out to the grid. But there's another meter on on on panels. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So the so the utility does know who has that, and and and we pay we pay the electric deficiency charge on the total usage in the house. [Speaker 5 ]: That's right. Yeah. Okay. So the law said so what the utilities are saying well, the department says, let's be clear in their calculation, that when I when we generate PowerBock that goes behind the meter that I use, that doesn't touch the grid, that's a lost sales to each utility. And because that's a lost sale, that is revenue that the utility cannot collect, and that is a problem. They say that is a problem for utilities that Vermonters are using this energy behind the meter. I just wanna be super clear. There is no other program in Vermont that has that same evaluation. So when Efficiency Vermont gives you or helps you get a new efficient refrigerator, that is a lost sale. You just used less electricity. The Department of Public Service does not say that lost sales you are not cost shifting with your refrigerator to other ratepayers. That lost sales argument runs entirely counter to fighting climate change and and and and putting off energy efficiency programs. Because every time, if Jack were to turn off this light because he wants to conserve energy in here because he cares so much now, that would be technically the your side here is holding me. Yes. Sorry, Jack. I'm getting to be on this side. Right? So anytime we conserve electricity, in theory, that's a lost sales to the utility, which should, according to this definition, cause a cost shift. But we would never set we would never evaluate a program like that as cost shifting. It only is for net metering that we count that as an expense. [Dara Torre]: Come on. Mhmm. [Speaker 8 ]: Okay. So I would say there's a cost shifting, but I'm because, I mean, it it there's a cost to operating the grid. [Speaker 5 ]: Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: But I'm intrigued by the efficiency argument, and then this is the only place that lost sales are applied. [Speaker 5 ]: And I'm thinking about that. So the other thing that happened, and I have my resume nerd chart, repeat, of course, is that and this is again, we're talking about the PUC needs its adjustments to the net metering compensation. Can I just [Laura Sibilia]: I'm grateful? Yeah. Well, I just [Speaker 8 ]: wanna make sure, Peter. So, I mean, if we're selling less power, that does shift the cost of operating the grid. It does. Right. It's I mean, [Speaker 5 ]: because But that's power. Right. But that's well, we're right. But let me just say that that since twenty twenty nineteen right here. That's right. Since, okay. Since, twenty twenty one, net metered customers have been charged, an adjuster on all their behind the meter generation. So when I do this behind the meter generation, now I pay four cents for each one of those kilowatt hours to contribute. That goes right to the utilities. They profit four cents for every kilowatt hour when I just and it doesn't touch their grid or anything. And that helps that, in theory, helps compensate them for the main all their costs of maintaining the grid, that four cents adjuster. Because they never it's not energy they they have to build extra wires for. It is not right? Because it's just behind the meter. And that's you know, that is not I mean, we're putting up, like, twenty five megawatts a year of net metered solar. I mean, that's a lot of megawatts of solar. They don't have to go purchase on the open market. They don't have to build extra poles and wires for. They don't have to hire more people to add into the post. Like and getting that four cent adjuster is, you know, not insane. That's what the PC is determined as, like, as appropriate. No. I'm just I [Laura Sibilia]: mean, I'm well, I'm just trying to I [Speaker 8 ]: I did not realize that there are no other [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: Entities Yeah. [Laura Sibilia]: Where that calculation Correct. [Speaker 5 ]: None of the efficiency Vermont's program. [Speaker 8 ]: And we should hear from the department about this. But Sure. You're you're saying that there are it's only [Speaker 5 ]: It's only for Nick. That the lost sale argument is count calculated as part of a caution. [Chair Kathleen James]: What I'm also right. You go ahead. [Speaker 7 ]: I just have [Chair Kathleen James]: to reiterate. So what I'm also hearing is that is you saying because that generated power never reaches the grid and it's powering my home first before it flows over, you know, that it's not responsible for, you know, necessary grid infrastructures or it's not impacting grid capacity. [Speaker 5 ]: Right. [Chair Kathleen James]: But to compensate for the fact that it is still lost sales, if that's how you look at it, a four cent a kilowatt hour p adjuster is still being applied to kinda balance that out. [Speaker 5 ]: That's great. Did I [Chair Kathleen James]: get all that? [Speaker 5 ]: Yeah. I mean, the PUC would not draw a direct line between the four cent adjuster and the grid maintenance cost. I've never said that in a ruling. I don't mean to imply that. What I'm saying [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: No. [Speaker 6 ]: I said that. [Laura Sibilia]: I said that. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: That's Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: But what I'm saying is utilities get four cents for every kilowatt hour of energy that we all generate behind the meter for something they they they're they're not doing anything for. And that helps offset at the time the the other great cost that they do legitimately have to to maintain. And that is not that is a correct state. That is correct, I think. That's not a question. [Chair Kathleen James]: Well, Scott had his hand up. It couldn't last [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So what I so what I I guess I was not aware of this. First of all, I wasn't aware that that that was where the objection had gone because Yeah. When I bought into a community solar field, I was getting an extra six cents. [Speaker 5 ]: Yeah. Yeah. Six cents positive. That was ten years ago now. I guess. Different time. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: But so in effect, though, that four cents is is is a sales fee Yeah. That the utility is is is is collecting. And how does that compare to the to to the sort of long term wholesale contracts that that that that most utilities have. It must be not very much [Speaker 5 ]: less than that. You know? I I don't know. I'd have to really dig in that. Thank you. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Anyway, that's fine. Yeah. That's fine. I I'm I'm just I I in in in effect, we're paying four cents a kilowatt hour for that for that electricity. We're we're we're paying [Speaker 9 ]: the utility four cents, if you have [Speaker 5 ]: Right. And there is a rationale. Right? No. No. I and and [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and [Speaker 5 ]: I've and [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: I've and I've and I've [Speaker 5 ]: and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've and I've I believe, through that well, I believe, through that four cent fee. Yep. Yep. PUC may cost something different, but they are paying into the greater good through that four cents. Yep. [Speaker 7 ]: So but this loss of sales is the gross loss of sales of a hundred kilowatt hours that generated, that they make three hundred a day. They use a hundred during the day. They use the other two hundred at night when the sun's not shining. But it doesn't have a subtractor for the cost of the energy in that lost sales here. It's just total lost sales, twenty cents a kilowatt hour. Well, above market rate. The above market rate is if they were paying twenty three four cents for a kilowatt hour. They're losing with the four cents on the kilowatt, and they're losing the twenty cents. But if they have to go out and buy it at eight cents [Speaker 5 ]: Right. [Speaker 7 ]: They're really That's it. So [Speaker 5 ]: So I I haven't talked about the above market pump. But the lost sales, just to put an example here. So switching from electric hot water heater to a heat pump hot water heater would cause, in theory, a three thousand eight hundred kilowatt hour in lost sales because you just used a lot of HSE compared to a seven kilowatt. Net reading array causes a seven thousand two hundred kilowatt hour in lost sales. And so just giving you an example like that. When you switch to that water hot water heater and you say and you now use thirty eight hundred less kilowatt hours in a year, no one who's evaluating the efficacy of that program says that's a that's a cost shift from a lost sale. It's only the law the cost shift from a lost sale on that seven kilowatt net metering. Right? That's what I'm saying. And and so when we hear this term cost shift used by people who by people who have concerns on net metering, I I just think that that's one of the ways that that cost shift is a little bit inflating. So I'm not sure it's really a full on cost shift like that. And then now I can go into the above market electricity part if [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: you want. That's it's more question. Look. [Laura Sibilia]: Let's see [Speaker 7 ]: what okay. Those details those details after your statement here are really questions for the PUC and the Mhmm. The commission Sure. And and the department. Right. And I think that's where [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. That's [Speaker 7 ]: where we have to raise [Speaker 5 ]: the question. So in the middle of this slide, the department public service department's calculations of the above market electricity from net metering does not account for many of the benefits of behind the meter generation, including the historic savings from peak shaving and the value of grid upgrades paid for by net metering customers. So for example, I have a ten k w on my roof. Right? I pay to connect that to the grid out of my pocket. And then we when all these engineering people do it, like, the twenty that's like you know, every year, we're putting up twenty or thirty megawatts of net meter solar. That's thirty megawatts of solar that's being connected to the grid that people are paying for that the utility otherwise would have had to get that power and pay for it. So that's a big big financial savings, those interconnection of all the new customers. Also, you know, way back in the day, prior to, let's say, twenty thirteen or one of the recent in twenty thirteen, the department did a report and found there was no cost shift from net metering in part because our peak was in the middle of the day. So when solar came on and it was cheaper, it actually cut that peak. The cut the utilities need to buy peak power, which is really expensive. I'm gonna I don't have an exact peak number, but, like, if the average rate now is, I don't know, fourteen, fifteen cents, that peak rate, I would bet, would be closer to, like, twenty cents. It's a lot more money. Peak power purchases are really where there's big bucks being can be spent. So when NetMinering Solar was shaving that peak, we were paying Vermonters, you know, through this higher rate to shave the peak. We were actually saving utilities even more money, which is why, today in twenty thirteen, the department was saying there's no cost shift here because all that cost investment in that meter is actually stopping these peak power purchases, which is super expensive. That's good. Now our peak has, because we have so much solar, has moved from the afternoon to the evening, which is the department is now saying that the the value of solar right now on the open market is, like, seven cents. It used to be a lot higher. So there is definitely a cost shift. And I would argue that there is you know, no. Residential net metering is probably the most expensive form of power now that we've eliminated off-site net metering because that was really that didn't even have behind the meter benefits. But it's not so it's not as expensive as as I think people perceive. The cost shift is not as severe. For for most residential rate payers, new net metering coming online other than WEC, which has its own kind of thing going on, every residential rate payer in the other utilities is paying less than thirty five cents a month for new net metering. The ownership is not as and that's using the department's formula. It's not a it's not a punitive number, I don't think, to most residential rate payers for the values you get. [Speaker 8 ]: So, Peter, I mean, this whole I mean, we're in the middle of an energy transition. Right? So this is a very dynamic space. Right? So we're increasing energy, increasing efficiency, switching fuels, building the grid. So it's do you have an opinion? And I will ask the department this as well and the PUC. Like, what is the best way for a legislator to really see on balance kind of what is happening there? Because Yeah. You know, what what maybe what may like, the cost shifts that were happening five years ago may be different Right. Than today, you know, and and they may be less or growing, and they may be different. So do you understand the question I'm asking, which is on balance, what what would be the best way for us to see that on balance, that transition? [Speaker 5 ]: Well, if you're talking about are you saying, like, where we should what are what should our plan be to where do we get our power from? Is that, like, what what are we trying to what [Speaker 8 ]: are you trying to now? Yeah. Maybe it's a [Speaker 5 ]: It would go back to that values piece that I talked about. You know, if you just looked at pennies and a bill, you could probably try to shoot That's not what I meant. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. [Speaker 8 ]: I'm not asking for, like, a dollar thing. I'm just asking. And I I'm thinking about the energy thinking about, like, And being kind of saying, you know, like, being able to view, you know, how so net metering may be becoming less expensive, maybe it's more expensive. We may be increasing the amount of electricity. Who's paying it? Where's the cost shaft happening? So [Speaker 5 ]: the first thing, right, the one of the reasons I think we have to even talk about this Solar's coming up. Storage is coming up. Unlike maybe five years ago or ten years ago, we probably we're having much different discussion because we all agree that load is gonna grow. And that's the biggest. We need new power. Right? There's people's loads are growing. Right? We're gonna plug in more cars. We're gonna get more EVs. Regionally, the coal plants are coming offline. No one's building a new coal plant around here. [Speaker 8 ]: Paying and who's paying for it? Right. [Speaker 5 ]: So since load is growing, we have to, like you're saying, think about what is this balance? What are we trying to do with the in fact that we need more power, where should new power come from, and how do we balance all of those needs? Right? You know, there is something to be said for building a bunch of a bunch of energy in Vermont where we know we could control it. That's why I think ultimately the utility signed on to that res bill. They liked the ability to have more energy built here in Vermont where they could control those processes. I don't put words in the house, but I think there was having a certain you know, that twenty percent of our power coming from the in state wasn't, I think, very was something they thought was a good thing. That's why they signed on to the res bill. Now there's certainly only CVV need for Vermont to buy power from out of state. [Speaker 8 ]: They they also liked to be I'll put words in their mouth to also have their own individual track. Yep. [Speaker 5 ]: And that's [Speaker 6 ]: it was really important for them. [Speaker 5 ]: But, you know, net net metering, if interest rates interest rates are at a historic high last couple years, and that really impacted consumers' ability to take out the loans to net meter. If interest rates come down given that so the production of solar panels is is can be cheaper, labor costs are high, generally, solar gets a little cheaper each year other than spiking interest rates, which really threw off the whole equation. But those same interest rates also impact the larger projects. You know? But overall, new solar is cheaper than new natural gas every time in this area. In New England, every single time, It's cheaper than doing natural gas. [Chair Kathleen James]: So, Scott, we have ten minutes left. [Speaker 5 ]: I only have one more slot. [Chair Kathleen James]: No. That's okay, Scott. Scott Campbell. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. Okay. So so I'm I'm I'm still Yeah. Trying to flush out this this the four cent cost and Yeah. And and and in effect, that that four cent the negative four cents on the dollar, is is moderating, maybe not eliminating, but moderating the lost sales That's right. [Speaker 5 ]: Argument. Right? I I would say that. It's it's we're paying for the lost sales. That's right. Yep. And remember there's two four cents right now. There's the four cents for the behind the meter generation, and there's the four cents if you choose to keep your rack. Those are two separate four cents. Oh, so You got two buckwords. If you keep [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Oh, so so it's actually zero. [Speaker 5 ]: No. No. It would be minus eight cents. It's minus eight cents. Yeah. If you kept your rack [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Oh, if you kept your rack. [Speaker 5 ]: If you kept your rack. So there's a four I earlier, I talked about keeping the rack force rack. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. From the force center behind the meter. Adjust negative. That's great. So Screen. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Okay. So so that's that's but, therefore, the the the the formula that they're using, it's almost entirely the the the reach out. There's the fact that that [Speaker 5 ]: Man, it's too much. That's right here. I'm in. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: The the the customer is is is getting paid. They're, of course, getting their their bill off. [Speaker 5 ]: So they're getting paid, in effect, the retail rate of electricity minus the four cents. They're getting what's called the blended residential rate. It's not a retail. It's what it says. It's called the blended residential rate, and it's set in statute the way the department has to calculate that. So it's not there it's not the retail rate. Not the retail rate. Retellate that. It'd be very different. Okay. But if I do okay. And if I [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: do reach out, I do remember that And [Speaker 5 ]: the phrase. Yeah. Okay. And [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: and, [Speaker 5 ]: you know, just to put a finer point on it, you know, every time the compensation for net metering goes down, you know, those adjusters, that just pushes out the payback period for a consumer who sits with the choice about whether they're in net meter. That's what it really comes down to in people or most people is when When you meet with someone, you wanna go solar. Well, I gotta take out a loan. Is it gonna be a ten year loan, a twelve year loan, a fifteen year loan? You know, with the where we are now with these adjusters, you know, for most people, it's pushing over fifteen years, which pushes a lot of people away. So to your question earlier on your from you earlier about how do you make it more attractive to low income folks, I would I would say if we would have a program that will allow them in a meter and brought that payback period down to five years, like that, most people can't just part with twenty grand for an how that would be Well, [Speaker 9 ]: that that's kinda my point. When you're looking at lower and moderate income people [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. They can't afford another payment. So so [Speaker 5 ]: that Right. [Speaker 9 ]: They they can't afford a loan payment. That if [Speaker 5 ]: they could, they may make the choice on their own. Right. Most most But I just wanna be very careful here. At all. Most people who go solar, what they usually do is they size most people size their project in a way that the monthly payment on that loan would be roughly equivalent to their electric bill. Right? Right? So you savings of the electric bill. Yeah. Right. That's how you size your right? So it's just that you're making that kind of investment in your house, and not everyone wants to wait fifteen years for that investment to pay off. I'll I'll pay my electric bill and deal with that. Like, again, I don't want to wait fifteen years to pay off that loan versus just dealing with their electric bill every month. So you're not usually when you when you go solar at home, you're not really if you have a loan, you most times, you're not taking on an expense. You're usually sizing it usually to be the size the loan payment to be the size of your your average electric bill. [Speaker 9 ]: Well, I'll just kinda counter that with the cost of the upgrades to panels and this and that. That's an expense that is there, and that's real, and it's large. Yeah. That's right. On top of the the solar. [Speaker 5 ]: But you wouldn't upgrade your panel just because you went solar on your roof. You wouldn't need to put new battery life for that. You only need a new battery life when you you don't need to pull more power out. Right. [Speaker 9 ]: But in the guise of having a DB [Speaker 5 ]: Oh, totally. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Oh, a hundred [Speaker 5 ]: percent correct. Oh, yeah. A hundred percent correct. [Speaker 9 ]: That's that's [Speaker 5 ]: where I want you to make that balance. Hundred percent cost. Yes. That's exactly right. Yep. That is a big cost. This guy just spent twelve thousand to upgrade a panel. That's terrible. Thank you. Yep. Yeah. Perfect. I agree. [Speaker 0 ]: I will say a decade ago or so when we built a top, the net meter facility at Danforth, the developer apparently felt they could do it this way. They got the land for free because it was on an employee's land in return for providing her with free electricity for her deal. And our deal with them was we don't pay the electric bill anymore. We just pay them. Yeah. And our deal was it needs to be five percent below market. Oh, wow. We got the discount on the electricity. The developer felt they could make money with everything they had to put in the building. And, I mean, they did get the land for the cost of whatever that small residence took. Right. Right. But it it made everybody happy. [Speaker 5 ]: Yeah. You know, that's a little different project than what we're talking about because it's it's more scalable. [Speaker 0 ]: Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: So pretty Yep. With incredible luck. I'm on my last slide. No. No. [Laura Sibilia]: No. No. No. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: No. We've been here. [Speaker 6 ]: You would try to stop. [Chair Kathleen James]: Just slow Peter down. Well, okay. That's not [Speaker 5 ]: that easy of being. So to bring it back home to twenty fives and fifteenths, we're talking about two similar sized arrays, two very different result. The larger back backyard projects have not been built. So there's an example on your left of a fifteen, fourteen point nine k w in Barnard and a twenty five. Both are in someone's backyard. They're both you know, they're not that different in size. Only twelve CPG applications have been filed since twenty twenty for projects fifteen to twenty five k w, meaning when you're a homeowner and you are presented with the option to go to twenty five k w under the current permitting scheme, you do not want to wait and pay the extra money to get the bigger array. You just put the fifteen in and that's all you do. And we think raising this fast permitting process up to twenty five k would just help more people go solar where they live, and utilities still have the exact same ability to stop the project. They don't think it's appropriate. But it just saves expense and time for homeowners wanting to electrify and go solar [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: in a home business. [Speaker 5 ]: Do you have any [Speaker 9 ]: sense of if this was to happen, how many people you would see take advantage of this? Oh, [Speaker 5 ]: yeah. So like I said in the earlier earlier slide, I there were a hundred twenty nine homeowners who put in a raise up to fifteen who put in a fifteen k w. How many of those hundred twenty nine go to twenty twenty five k w? I mean, I would imagine at least half of them [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: are not working. Talking about new application. [Speaker 9 ]: I'm not talking about existing. I'm talking about new. [Speaker 5 ]: Well, I'm saying these are all the people who made the decision. In twenty twenty four, a hundred twenty nine people made the decision to put up a fifteen k w right at the limit. Right. A hundred and twenty nine people made a decision. Let's say twenty twenty five is the same hundred twenty nine people. How many of them with this law were in place would make the decision to go up to twenty five? I bet most of them would. Because if you're putting up a fifteen k w, you're probably thinking you're gonna electrify some, and you're probably gonna want more power. So I bet you the most of them would take many many of them would take advantage. It would not be it wouldn't be a dozen or two. It would be a bunch. [Speaker 9 ]: Oh, you're talking about adding to existing. [Speaker 0 ]: No. He's saying that if you assume that every year, a hundred and thirty people No. [Speaker 9 ]: That's that's that's apart from an [Speaker 5 ]: established assumption. Yeah. You said that. Thank you. [Speaker 7 ]: So a hundred and thirty people dropped at fifteen either because it was the limit or that's all they needed. How many installations were there at? Ten, eight, five? What's the smallest people apply? You said thirty megawatts. Somebody run the my numbers quick. A hundred fifteen times well, fifteen, fifteen, two twenty five. So so you had thirty Yeah. I have about eight Yeah. Thirty megawatts. You only had about eight megawatts not accounted for. Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: Well, yeah, a couple of those were old five hundreds going. Well no. But they were so [Chair Kathleen James]: We can ask them to [Laura Sibilia]: use the The [Speaker 5 ]: average size of a of a residential array now is the five double lines. [Speaker 7 ]: The average the average [Speaker 5 ]: is a ten. It used to be a seven, but people are using more power these days. The average is a ten. More. And I would I think based on what my solar folks are telling me, a lot of people would take advantage of this faster process because they they wanna electrify a home, and they're stopping too many people. And some [Speaker 7 ]: of the old eights and less smaller is the smaller roof. Somebody filled their roof. Right. They didn't they didn't wing out. They didn't build additions to build more. [Speaker 5 ]: Right. [Speaker 7 ]: So that's another issue there. That is different. Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: So I'm happy to answer more questions. You know, one thing I would advise I'm taking my last minute plant to seed with you all. I mean, there's really a lot of questions in it about net metering is with the p Public Utility Commission. The next time they're gonna adjust the net metering rate will start in January of twenty twenty seven. That rate will come out in May of twenty seven, and it will go into effect in September of twenty seven. So the Public Utility Commission in January is going to start their process to readjust the net metering compensation. Given that, the last eight, seven times they've adjusted it, it's gone down. One would reasonably assume that the Public Utility Commission is going to adjust downward the rate for that for montage received to net meter. You know, originally, with net metering, the the general assembly set the rate for net metering. Then it eventually, over time, it handed it to the PUC to go set that rate. At some point, maybe in this committee, we can have a discussion on what would be the role, what kind of direction should the should the let the general assembly give the PUC about making sure Vermonters can meet her at home. That's just that conversation. [Speaker 7 ]: Did did you see the Velcro? Yes. I think that's not yesterday. [Speaker 5 ]: No. I didn't see [Speaker 7 ]: Velcro yesterday. They seem to give the impression that they can't handle more local generation to get it out of the system during the peak time peak peak times of the day that they're overloading. And and they I specifically asked. I don't know if they listened, but they said I asked. They said a minimal demand of internal load so that the homeowner is not home but generating. Yeah. And Right. It just has kind of little refrigerator type things. And and then they would and they were overloading certain parts of the system because of [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: The twenty minute time growth. Brick going. [Speaker 5 ]: I don't know. I mean, generally, Belco is accurate. When do you say anything, I they're very good at what they do. There is no doubt there are parts of Vermont that are grid constrained. Velco has a plan to upgrade. [Speaker 6 ]: But you can't build there. [Speaker 5 ]: But you cannot you would not be able to enter that. Oh, right. The utility would stop you from the encryption. They've been, like, like, ten like, even a ten k w rooftop, you know, would not get interconnected. You know, WEC stops those all the time when on the parts of their service territory where their infrastructure is not able able to handle. Like, even, like, small rooftop, the WEC is telling their members you can't connect that. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: That's all also worst case scenario. You know, that was n minus one minus one. [Speaker 7 ]: N minus one minus one. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So they're they're dining for the absolute They're [Speaker 9 ]: worst case scenario redundancy. Lost [Speaker 7 ]: line. Right. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So we need to just keep that in mind. It's not like current's connected stuff. Yeah. [Speaker 0 ]: I would also add that I talked a little while ago to a guy who's starting a company specifically to do on-site solar and battery storage with no no no bidirectional. It's just to power the house. Oh, yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: And operate. Yeah. Like What what [Speaker 0 ]: what You could still be connected. Right. You could feed You're not feeding the grid in any way. You're feeding your house, and if you generate more than you need You [Speaker 7 ]: got the fire department connected. The fire department's on call with the electric line, but you're not used. Yeah. It's a hose isn't [Speaker 5 ]: But that wouldn't be through the net metering program. Correct. Correct. Hang out of pocket. [Speaker 0 ]: That's Right. But but I'm just saying that it's it's there is an economic model where that works where you're not Right. Selling electricity back to the grid. Exactly. So in these constrained transmission and distribution pockets, people can still power their home. I'm sorry. But they can't they can't. Any access they generate, they can't put on the grid. [Dara Torre]: Yeah. Rep. Tori, a really quick question for you. So we heard about a a new proceeding that's gonna happen around refiliates, And I'm kind of excited to know Yeah. What that could show in terms of the value of distributed generation at the resilience. [Speaker 5 ]: I'm very excited about that too. [Dara Torre]: But it hasn't started yet. [Speaker 5 ]: No. But my guess would be that it would show that it would just it would increase the value of distributed solar, distributed resources. You'd really be having a greater understanding about when there's a microgrid in Rochester, what value does that bring into ratepayers? And that's a self sufficient area in case there's a flood. Like, that happens when we use if that's being distributed solar and energy storage. So, yeah, I think that'll that document will be very exciting and should give us some real good information on the value of Vermont producing more power here and being more resilient. Yeah. That's right. So thank you so [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: much. Peter. Peter. [Dara Torre]: Thank you so much. You. [Speaker 5 ]: You can tell. I'll let you know after. You let me know after. [Laura Sibilia]: We weren't talking about this. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: I was I was [Chair Kathleen James]: Peter, thanks for being here. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Thank you. [Laura Sibilia]: Alright. Oh, you guys have a generous one here. What is this? Yeah. Oh, is [Speaker 6 ]: this a we you know, [Chair Kathleen James]: we can't get a better She's [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: get a [Speaker 6 ]: little pull [Dara Torre]: out. Do we have a better? Yeah. It's not very comfortable. Well, that's alright. [Laura Sibilia]: So you don't want me to stay too long from that. It's the [Speaker 0 ]: most comfortable folding chair we have. [Laura Sibilia]: Actually, the one that we're [Chair Kathleen James]: gonna do. Kelvin is here too. We updated our agenda, I think. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yesterday. [Chair Kathleen James]: It's here to introduce us to eight three ninety four. So we'll introduce ourselves since I don't Yes. There's a [Laura Sibilia]: couple actually, two gentlemen down here, but I think the [Speaker 6 ]: only ones who don't know. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Well, we, yeah, represented [Speaker 7 ]: I'm Christopher Howland. I'm from Rutland Fuller. [Laura Sibilia]: Hi. Nice to [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: meet you. Amy Sheldon from Middlebury. Michael Southworth, Caledonia too. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. So we're doing bill introductions. So representative Sheldon is here with [Dara Torre]: Ninety eight. [Chair Kathleen James]: Three ninety four, which I think is Bill, you said you spent some time on this summer. [Laura Sibilia]: I did. And I spent time along with some stakeholders or Renewable Energy Vermont being one among them, and then Conservation Law Foundation and The Nature Conservancy and I worked together to create the bill that's before you. The goal really was to both address some inefficiencies in the development of renewables, but also some of the siting things that we didn't get around to looking at in the renewable energy standard updates from last year. So I as many of you already know, I'm super interested in how to use our lands, and, also, I'm a financial supporter of renewable energy development. So the goal here is to continue or enhance enhance how we promote development of renewables on already developed sites, including rooftops, backyard, and adjacent to already developed renewable energy sites so that we are putting less stress on the forest and working lands that are kind of the greenfield developed areas without also finding it not we're trying to be realistic in the current environment around subsidies and some of the pressures on rates that we learned about last year. So, I mean, I can sort of high level. I'm not gonna walk you through the bill, but I'll say that we again, we're sort of balancing that desire for good siting out there in the landscape of renewables and also the motor efficiency and the development of them. So the very first section is incorporating Vermont conservation design into solar siting to enhance excuse me, and to enhance energy plans. And, actually, one thing I don't know if y'all have had the time, but I would really encourage you to take an hour with Bob and and learn about Vermont conservation design. So we adopted [Chair Kathleen James]: That's a good idea. [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. It's it's it's foundational, I think, to understanding where certainly where our land use regulations are headed. And I would encourage kinda all developers, developers of all kinds, including renewable energy developers, to look at that document and understand where they fit into the landscape in terms of what we've now codified as the vision for the state of Vermont, which is Vermont conservation design as a foundation for preserving an intact and functioning landscape for both people and wildlife. So that is one piece. It's getting that Vermont conservation design into enhanced energy planning. And then encouraging net metering by having a sort of a floor or whatever so that we continue to do net metering, maybe not at the rates that that were once happening. But, again, thinking about if we could do renewable energy development on rooftops and in people's backyards, first, we get the advantage of the distributed energy, but also less disturbance to our working lands and natural areas. And then there's some technical things. Again, I would go to the partners who helped develop our figures in the room, but the sort of elimination of the single plan determination, which is sort of a constraint on the development of renewable energy site sites that limits adjacent developments from happening in places that it may be appropriate for that to happen. Having a twelve month limit on the it's the granting of certificate of public good on energy's source that is less than five megawatts. It does create a public energy advocate, and this is someone not just it's it's sort of someone to help anyone who doesn't understand the system. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: So it [Laura Sibilia]: could be a small time renewable energy developer, but also be a concerned citizen who wants to engage in the process. So creating a position, I believe, that's modeled on Massachusetts. We did look. Massachusetts got a little they they kind of got out ahead of us in some ways. There was a very big Audubon report on forest loss in Massachusetts that got me interested in, you know, how do we make sure that as we build out our renewable energy infrastructure, we're not impacting those critical forest blocks that that really make our working forests available for for all the things we all we know they're important for. And one piece that I requested that didn't seem to got lost in in the mix here is I'd really like you to consider a limit on solar developments over five megawatts. And I learned in this process that most solar developments, there's a there's a gap in the sort of return on investment around a solar field. And so you see a lot of five megawatts happening. And then when it goes bigger, it goes a lot bigger. And those are the developments, I think, that become most shocking and out of scale to Vermonters. And so considering maybe putting a cap on the size of of renewable energy, a solar development at five megawatts, I don't purport to be the technical expert on all of these things. Again, I go back to desire to balance impacts to our intact functioning landscape with the development of renewable energy so that we can have our own reliable grids. [Chair Kathleen James]: So, [Speaker 6 ]: thanks, Chair Sheldon. I have a couple of questions. [Chair Kathleen James]: I think it's a good idea, for us to learn about, the Vermont conservation design. So we'll get that testimony, going. [Speaker 6 ]: I I know I'd I'd be very interested in learning about that. [Chair Kathleen James]: And then just because you're way out ahead of us in terms of your years way ahead of me in terms of your years of experience on this issue. So we're in the the section of statute here, and I'm sorry that I had a chance to look at this before. But the termination of energy compliance, is that a process that any new energy generation thing, whether it's solar or or anything else, has to receive? Is it [Laura Sibilia]: I think that's the that's part of the enhanced energy planning. Right? And so that is for a town to receive what is it? Right? You know? Yeah. Substantial difference. Substantial difference. Thank you. Yeah. That's what your energy plan needs to include. And so I just thought that was an opportunity, again, just to draw attention to Vermont conservation design. I I think I guess my experience has been that once people learn about and understand the goals behind Vermont conservation design, and for those of you who are are not familiar with it, it comes from our department of fish and wildlife. And it is a framework for the conservation of biodiversity in the state of Vermont that includes guidance. I'm not gonna say it's not a plan, but it is a it's a guiding document to help us maintain eighty percent of the species in the state. And then, of course, your first question is [Speaker 6 ]: what happens the other twenty percent? Yes. [Laura Sibilia]: The other twenty percent is intended like, those are the ones that are more specialized that we've been targeting over time. So rare threatened endangered species have special plans on particular habitats. But this is a kind of a core scale framework for in the face of climate change, and understanding that we are developing our landscape for human use, like, of course, we are. What does the the rest of the natural community need to survive both with increased pressure from humans, but also from climate change? Okay. So that section basically, we're [Chair Kathleen James]: in the we're in the whole section of law that governs what a regional or municipal energy plan has to already comply with in order to receive substantial deference for that plan with any siding or what the so in other words, we're saying in addition to the things that you already do in order to receive that benefit, a substantial difference, you also need to we're gonna add this thing. You also need to comply with Vermont conservation designs. Well [Speaker 6 ]: Is that Complying might be [Laura Sibilia]: a little heavy. Okay. So just to be consistent with the following. So you need to take it into consideration. [Chair Kathleen James]: Take it into consideration. [Laura Sibilia]: Use it when you're making your enhanced energy plan. I I guess I just add because I had an odd moment here. I come from Middlebury. People care about renewable energy, and they care about the environment. And we do not have an enhanced energy plan. And I sort of was noodling on what what does that mean. And I think as a planner, I was like, oh, wouldn't everyone want this? And I think the perception might be that energy plans are for towns that wanna limit renewable energy. And I sorta I guess I was seeing it the other way, which is we wanna stay where we want it. This is, like, an exciting opportunity. But I think that's something for both my committee and your committee to just be aware of and hold and and kind of, like, the the idea, I thought, was to help towns prepare for this type of development and also identify where they wanted it. And I continue to hold that hope as why, you know, why we plant so that communities can have conversations about where they want certain land use to occur Mhmm. And identify those areas as opposed to just looking at limiting it. Yeah. Okay. [Speaker 6 ]: Questions yet? [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Sure. So I'm I'm looking at page three and the only change there, which which say is achieving a a level of of deployment no less than twenty megawatt per year Yeah. Which is, I I I presume, seeking just just for more development. Do we know what what the the computer knows? Current rate. Current rate is? It's thirty. Current rates. Current rates. Okay. So why why did we why did we add this? [Laura Sibilia]: I think because it's been declining year over year. So [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: the the message is don't make rules and make good enough. [Laura Sibilia]: I think just yeah. Don't give up on it entirely. Yeah. And there you you all know there's pluses and minuses to Right. Net meter. Just trying to find that. Right? Like, how do we encourage development on the built environment where people want it? [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: It Right. Without too much increased Okay. Big pressure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Perhaps, Sebelia. [Speaker 6 ]: Not a question. [Speaker 8 ]: Just a comment noting that you've all kind of taken the opportunity to correct [Laura Sibilia]: the statute and update goals to request. Thank you, [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. Great. Well, we just I mean, it was perfect timing because we just [Speaker 6 ]: walked through s fifty, which is also is about residential and about outdoor [Chair Kathleen James]: solar fee expedited registration process. So it's just great timing. [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. Real quick, ma'am. [Speaker 0 ]: Presumably, the creation of the public entity advocates will require in [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: property or something. Yeah. From there. So what I can do. Yeah. [Laura Sibilia]: That's you know, be aspirational in our fields. And I would actually just note that, you know, senate is sending you the the bill of whatever. Twenty five is the new fifteen. [Chair Kathleen James]: That's that's [Speaker 6 ]: what we just wanted. Did that. Okay. [Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. So I think this lines up well. That section is in here as well. If Peter reads that. Yeah. [Chair Kathleen James]: That's why Peter was here. Alright. Thank you. [Laura Sibilia]: Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. Thank you so much, chair Doug. [Speaker 7 ]: He claimed copy copy right in that statement. [Laura Sibilia]: You did? Yeah. Yeah. He better get it. [Speaker 7 ]: I'm gonna get it. [Chair Kathleen James]: That's right. He did take credit. [Laura Sibilia]: Another member of last year's energy committees here. Alright. Take care, Roy. [Chair Kathleen James]: Thanks, Amy. Okay. Rep Logan, you I have four bills. I do. Okay. So just any, I guess, numerical order. Okay. [Dara Torre]: I can [Speaker 6 ]: I prepared to do them in numerical order, and that works well because Or [Chair Kathleen James]: whatever order you have prepared? [Speaker 6 ]: No. The first [Speaker 5 ]: numerical order. Really [Speaker 6 ]: are related to [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Sure. [Speaker 6 ]: Or the first two are more related to renewable energy and the TUC. They're all PUC related bills. We'll just put it that way. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. [Speaker 6 ]: The third bill is more generally about the goals of the PUC, and the fourth bill is related to the fee meets standard. Okay. Okay. So I'll I'll start with eight three twenty seven whenever you're ready. K. [Chair Kathleen James]: Getting there. Hang on one sec. [Speaker 6 ]: Oh, no rush. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Three twenty seven. Stop. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Three twenty seven. Got it. [Speaker 0 ]: Getting there. Want rep Logan to introduce himself for the record. [Chair Kathleen James]: Oh, yep. Thank you. For the record, you are. [Speaker 6 ]: I am representative Kate Hogan. I represent the Chittenden sixteen district, which is Central Old North End in downtown Burlington, and I serve on the committee on environment. Alright. So h three twenty seven, I'll start off by saying that I the title is a bit of a misnomer for this bill. I didn't get this bill until pretty much the last day. I couldn't introduce or I could approve it for introduction. So it says an act relating to labor requirements for certain energy projects. It's a bit broader than that, more about authorizing the PUC to make more specific requirements for contractors in the contracting process. So those I'd [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: say [Speaker 6 ]: the general problem that this bill is trying to address is that we're shifting to utility scale solar projects that are going to be using PUC regulated rate payer dollars to develop them. And and we're doing so without appropriate oversight of the contractors who are bidding to develop these new energy this new energy generation infrastructure. This is just an observation that I made during the last session while I was asking questions of utilities about the contracting process around. So, you know, the various programs that they have that are to benefit low income rate payers, for example. And so this bill would require any contractor who is bidding on a job to build solar infrastructure using PUC regulated rate payer dollars would submit a copy of the contract with a line item budget after construction is completed. So I I would be comfortable for this to happen during the bidding process, but a little bit of discussion with ledge council suggested that we start this way because this would be administratively more effective and it would offer the PUC the opportunity to go through this process a few times and decide if they want to move the process up. I would prefer, frankly, for it to happen at the at the time of bidding in order to be able to compare one contractor's bid against another. This is particularly important related to ensuring that we're getting least cost proposals that that are fair. Kind of a subset of that would be to require those contractors to certify that they're either using union labor or any laborers who work on the project are earning the prevailing wage. And so that would be part of their certified line item budget that they're submitting for review. Again, this is so that we can ensure that least cost proposals are not least cost because they're undercutting workers because we do wanna be sure that infrastructure jobs pay well, that we're benefiting working folks in Vermont as much as possible through these projects. [Laura Sibilia]: Sorry. I took a look. Great. Take a look. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Everything's been running great. [Chair Kathleen James]: I'm doing it. You bet. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Question about what you know about what workers who who work for these develop developers are now. We don't know anything. You we don't you don't know anything? [Speaker 6 ]: No. Great. [Speaker 5 ]: I mean, I guess, I'm what [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: I'm trying to find figure out is is this a problem? It is our our workers in the building solar farms. And these and these are your utility scale projects you're talking about here. Right? Hundred thousand dollars looks like the threshold. Yeah. So and and that would be the only situation in which repair dollars would be involved. It would be if if if utility was would was building this. Correct. So we don't know what what these folks are are earning now. These if these are workers who these develop these generate you know, generation facilities are trying [Speaker 6 ]: I don't know how we would know that. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. I know how I would've got that either. Although [Speaker 6 ]: There are no known unionized Yep. Laborers in this workforce currently. Yep. And so the workforce is not subject to a prevailing or it is not required to comply. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Right. So there's no regulation here, but I would Right. If it is a regulation by market, you know, quote, unquote. So theoretically, there being a relative jurist of these of these workers, one would imagine they're fairly well compensated. But Mhmm. Something we don't think so. Do we have any idea? [Speaker 0 ]: I don't have any idea. I just did I understand you correctly? Say there are no known union members working on solar utility scale solar installations? [Speaker 6 ]: As far as I know. [Speaker 0 ]: None of them are members of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or any of those unions? [Speaker 6 ]: Not unless they're public projects. [Speaker 0 ]: That's so interesting. [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. Right. Separate? [Speaker 9 ]: A couple of questions. I'll ask maybe a two part question. You stated this comes after the build. And so the other part to that is if it comes after the build, is this enforceable and how? [Speaker 6 ]: So that's why I would have preferred that we make this part of the bidding process. That would be my ultimate goal. So I think this is meant to be a provisional next step where all of this information is made publicly available sixty days after the construction project has been completed. So, yes, this is a requirement. There's no enforcement mechanism here. But I would imagine that once we've gone through a few projects that are subject to this requirement and those documents are reviewed, then we could determine whether or not we we need to make the switch to this being an upfront requirement. Thank you. [Dara Torre]: Richard, I'm just curious. Are there other states in New England that have prevailing language and union as required? No. Three children's not that I'm aware of. [Speaker 6 ]: There are versions of this in other states. [Laura Sibilia]: Mhmm. But not not quite like this. [Speaker 6 ]: Let me see. [Dara Torre]: K. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Three fifty two. [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. So this is following on the act one seventy nine report. This is the renewable energy standard report. One of the things that the renewable energy standard did act one seventy nine did was it created a sunset for group net metering systems. So you can read that sunset language beginning on the bottom of page five because they do amend that language here in this bill on page seven. Another thing that was required in act one seventy nine was a study on, coming up with a a renewable energy for communities program, something to replace the roof net metering program. And so this takes one section of the p of of the act one seventy nine report that recommended the development of a renewable energy for communities program that said, essentially, that there was need to be work done to develop the program. So I can just discuss to you the purposes of the program. So one of [Laura Sibilia]: the things that would I [Speaker 6 ]: I would say the problem that I flagged while we were working on amending the renewable energy standard, what especially this sunsetting of group net metering is that we're finally getting solar to scale and have seen some investment in ensuring that solar energy can benefit affordable housing communities and lower income rate payers. And so up until now, the the group net metering program has been very infrequently used and primarily used by developers in ways that were that are considered problematic. And so sunsetting the group net metering program will eliminate the problematic issues of group net metering, which I don't I don't know if you've taken much testimony on that No. Yet this year. [Chair Kathleen James]: We're gonna do the act one seventy nine report soon next week, I think. Great. [Speaker 6 ]: So the the issue that that creates, however, while eliminating the problems with group net metering is that it's a really great way for, say, new affordable housing developments where, you know, like, a little bit of on-site solar for single family residents would perhaps create sufficient amount of generation to make it, you know, take a take a significant amount of the cost of electricity off of the the residential bill on a monthly basis. But for a large affordable housing complex without much land, you can't put enough solar on-site in order to be able to truly benefit that affordable housing community. It's one thing that having a sufficient amount of solar would allow an affordable housing developer. For example, we heard an example from Kathy Beyer last session, an off-site group net metering program would allow them to have enough solar capacity off-site to just have a single meter for the entire community so that no one has an electricity bill. So, essentially, sunsetting the group off-site group vent metering program sort of eliminates that option for affordable housing developments. I live in affordable housing development in Burlington, very densely developed section of Burlington in the central over the end. The closest site to our property that where we could develop a sufficient amount of solar to service our community of forty eight households would be about three blocks away. So definitely not an adjacent parcel. Certainly not on parcel. We could probably put enough solar on our parcel to handle about five percent of our annual load. So this, in effect, creates a lot of barriers for communities like mine where we have, everything from, folks on Social Security all the way up to market rate units. So it's a mixed income development. But if we, were to adopt, say let's say we install heat pumps in every unit, especially in Burlington, that would be beneficial because we don't have air conditioning in the building. We rely on natural gas. It would reduce our need for natural gas, extend the life of our boiler. It would allow everybody to have air conditioning. And if we could also pair that with an off-site group net metering development, then we could legitimately save our residents, some of whom are on very low fixed incomes, a lot of money over time. And so we're essentially, we're not seeing the benefits of net metering flow to the people who could benefit from them the most. So sunsetting group net metering at a time when we're actually ready to start developing these sorts of solar generation facilities to benefit specific communities, affordable housing developments, municipalities, school districts is problematic. It just isn't gonna save people money at a time when we when we could, especially, yeah, our municipalities are schools and affordable housing projects. So this study was required in that bill that was from this week to push it last year. And so now I'm just taking PSD's recommendation that we create a renewable energy for communities program and turn it into a VELC. There are some general requirements of that program, but doesn't get into specifics because it needs to be developed. There's a list of stakeholders that would need to be consulted in order to develop the program, and then it should be implemented by January first of twenty twenty seven. And then because it would not be implemented until January first of twenty twenty seven on page seven, I extend sunset for off-site group met Maynard to December thirty first of twenty twenty six. [Chair Kathleen James]: So, Rev Logan, this takes the act one seventy nine report, which is we're hearing about next week. So try another one. [Speaker 6 ]: Do you mind if I'm better when [Chair Kathleen James]: we do when we do it on purpose? [Speaker 5 ]: I hope we do things in the right order. [Chair Kathleen James]: We do things in the right order. [Speaker 6 ]: It's very disturbing to me when we don't. But, [Chair Kathleen James]: anyway, yeah, we're hearing about the act one seventy nine report next week. So just to make sure I understood, so the successor the net meter successoring program that we're gonna be hearing about in the act one seventy nine report is this, and is this the same reg proceed program that's in agreement? Do you have any idea, or is it different? I don't know. Okay. Because we've got a bill h two eighty nine that we're starting to learn about, and it has to be proceed program, but I didn't certainly didn't go line by line. I'm just wondering if your bill equals act one seventy nine equals two eighty nine. I just we have a chance to compare it. [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. I have another, unfortunately. [Chair Kathleen James]: But this establishes the program. It's not a study. This establishes the program and then lays out guidelines for the program and deadlines for the program to actually be filled. And then it would kick in in twenty twenty seven? That's right. Okay. [Laura Sibilia]: Questions? Very close. And I just have to [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. Probably the same way. Yeah. Same draft, Dirk. Same instructions. Okay. [Speaker 0 ]: So addressing the concern the utilities had about net metering, this off-site net metering focuses the program on specific categories of customers. [Chair Kathleen James]: Mhmm. [Speaker 0 ]: And is is there a requirement, or do you imagine there being a requirement that, for instance, your community build a solar farm, you will be the only customer for that one that's three blocks away, or might it be shared It's the way [Speaker 6 ]: Oh, I I think the goal is to create a program that does deliver at least cost for ratepayers. So I would imagine the larger the scale, the better it is for ratepayers. [Speaker 0 ]: Multiple communities using one [Speaker 6 ]: I don't see one. [Speaker 7 ]: Right. Okay. [Speaker 6 ]: I don't know why not. So it I mean, I was open to this particularly after speaking with utilities and developers and who argued that we can do better than virtual net metering. We can come up with a program to benefit these communities that I'm talking about without and make it cost less. Gotcha. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: So this focuses specifically on environmental justice focused populations as defined in three d s a six zero two, which is probably our environmental justice bill of twenty twenty two, and we're gonna walk through that. [Laura Sibilia]: Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: And then we've got affordable housing Yep. Schools, municipal buildings. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. Yep. And then on the bottom of page four, you'll see the list of folks who should be consulted in the design of the program. [Chair Kathleen James]: In the design of the program. Okay. I think this idea is coming at us in a bunch of different ways. Right. [Speaker 6 ]: So From every direction, it sounds positive. [Chair Kathleen James]: Sounds always promising. But, Howland? [Speaker 7 ]: You've mentioned the energy be available, so it wouldn't be needed to meter on the individual living unit. [Dara Torre]: That's true. [Speaker 7 ]: And are you aware of back in the Carter years when federally, they required units to go back into to establish meter per unit because of the excess energy that was used when home home occupiers weren't paying for any individual meters. There wasn't a a impetus to reduce consumption. And this was the [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: I think [Speaker 5 ]: it was seventies. I think it [Speaker 7 ]: was seventies. Somebody can't tell me what year it was. But so if they're not paying the meter, they don't shut off the mix. They they there's not a incentive incentive to [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: To to conserve, and that's why we've got into this efficiency Vermont of the these types. Efficiency Vermont, the utilities proceeded with efficiency measurements way before efficiency Vermont was established. [Speaker 6 ]: Right. Okay. So sure. I understand the rationale there. I but I do if you're comparing, for example, the benefits of solar for a residential homeowner who and still take advantage of net metering, and what might have zero dollar electrical bills for a decade. What we're finding with affordable housing communities that participate in other programs that have been developed for their communities that still maintain a meter for each household, what we're finding is that no matter how much you reduce the bill every month for them through some discount for affordable housing or something like that, you still can't eliminate the the per the meter cost every month. So that's beneficial for households to be able to cut their their energy cost down to zero dollars per month, take twenty five dollars additional off the cost of having electricity, especially for folks with fixed incomes. There are other ways of of encouraging efficiency. The other thing I would say is if you did if you did an inventory of the energy use in affordable housing where the housing averages approximately eight hundred square feet per household. Affordable housing occupants use approximately twenty percent of the electricity of a residential homeowner per month. So I would say, affordable housing residents aren't the issue with energy use. [Speaker 7 ]: But the affordable housing resident only occupies eight hundred square feet versus [Speaker 6 ]: On average? [Speaker 7 ]: On average versus a sixteen or fifteen thousand square foot. Three thousand or Well, right. I'm not the person of three thousand. Yeah. But but and and I have no idea of what's what's the these are typically apartment complexes that that were developed in the seventies that we were going to be. Electricity was gonna be too deep to meter was the expression. [Speaker 6 ]: Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. And I think we've also had a lot of progress in technology since then. So our, you know, light bulbs, appliances are all quite a bit more efficient, and we have really significant incentives for folks on that on that front. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. Three fifteenth. Oh, yeah. Rep. Corey. Yeah. [Dara Torre]: So residents of mobile park parks will also have the ability to have [Laura Sibilia]: It's good to see. [Dara Torre]: I know I would [Speaker 6 ]: I would think that that would be an environmental justice focused population. Residents of But that's a great question. [Laura Sibilia]: I don't know who counts as [Speaker 6 ]: an environmental justice focused population, but I do believe mobile home communities are one of those focused populations. But it would be helpful to hear from ANR on that. [Chair Kathleen James]: When we walk through the EJ bill, let's remember to ask about that. I feel like those communities are included. But [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. Okay. Fairly certain. Yeah. [Chair Kathleen James]: Three five three. K. [Speaker 6 ]: So this, again, sort of on my punch list after last session. This updates the general goals for our state energy policy. It's a very you'll see short a very small amount of changes I'm making here to the state energy policy to include the fact that we must ensure both affordability of energy, but also equitable distribution of energy burden at the household level. So this gets at a little bit of what I was [Laura Sibilia]: just talking about actually. [Speaker 6 ]: The fact that the the lower your income, the larger portion of your income you spend on energy. And so as we're talking about rate paying and programs that develop renewable energy, just sort of kind of across the broad spectrum of the state energy policy that we should be trying to create more equity more equitable distribution of energy burden at the household level. Energy burden is also a really broad term. It doesn't just refer to electricity. It also refers to the cost of heat, the cost of transportation, fuel, and and the cost of electricity. So this says, insert a little bit. These are questions I think would be good to discuss with the PUC using the term energy burden because, again, it is broader than electricity and includes the household's total percentage of their expenses monthly expenses on energy. And so that it would be I think, especially as we're talking about affordability is one of our goals, making sure that lower income households, medium income households aren't paying an undue portion of their annual income on on on energy broadly. And the other piece of this on page two, I would actually if I had if I could redraft this again, I would I would strike the word beneficial. But it allows the PUC to include electrification. I use the term beneficial electrification because we're talking about things like installing heat pumps. It's it's a term. Right? Well, it's it's a term. It's a term. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. [Dara Torre]: Yeah. It is a term. Yeah. [Speaker 6 ]: But you could just strike beneficial and just say electrification. Yeah. But that a sufficient resources will be deployed to help folks electrify. So in addition to least cost integrated plan or least cost integrated planning would now include efficiency, conservation, a goal of electrification. So that's that's the bill there. K. And I guess the Oh, I'm sorry. Rev Southworth? [Speaker 9 ]: I'm just struggling with equitable distribution as energy burden of that. How do you envision that being put into [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: actual? [Speaker 6 ]: That's that's a good question. So there are a number of different policies that you could that you could put in place in order to try to achieve a goal of more equitable distribution of household energy burden. For example, the renewable energy for communities program or adopting an income sensitive rate payer structure for ensuring that a certain percentage of electrification initiatives benefit low to moderate income households, things that will drive that will make those households more efficient. So they'll be using less energy, so spending less money on energy, but also adjusting with the overall goal of making their their cost of energy of a lower percentage of their overall income. If you could imagine a household with a high income might spend a very small fraction of their annual income per year on and their energy costs. [Speaker 9 ]: So would you be talking about [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: a cost shift from somebody with a higher income rate [Speaker 5 ]: to the lower income rate? [Chair Kathleen James]: Potentially. I'll I'll dive in to to what I think what I think this bill would accomplish. My assumption and I I have not read thirty VSA two zero two. But my assumption is that we're at the very that this is probably the very high level, overarching values driven part of our state energy policy that then, you know, specific actions flow from. Right? So a lot of times in statute, you'll see, you know, like it says here, it's our general policy that everything we do in this statute and all the bills we enact and all the energy plans we do and stuff are gonna follow these high level values. So it feels to me like you're suggesting we add another value or consideration that would drive our energy planning, drive our policies. So Yep. It doesn't dictate specific policies or, you know, plans. [Speaker 9 ]: But it does suggest it. That's [Chair Kathleen James]: It suggests it. Yeah. But it wouldn't there wouldn't be specific. It's more like when we do this kind of work, let's make sure that we're aligned with affordability, equitable distribution of energy burden, economic vitality, efficiency, etcetera. Okay. Yeah. [Speaker 6 ]: I understand. Be just another item on the list that would serve as a metric for assessing our our state energy plans. [Speaker 8 ]: Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. I get that. Direct, Tori? [Dara Torre]: I'm thinking back last session, and we did direct from UC to look into a statewide energy assistance program, and that would be another control. Yeah. That would be an example. Yeah. As an energy assistance program. It doesn't come from other rural, you know, customers who can't afford. The cost shifts [Speaker 6 ]: Right. The cost shift internally to the utility, like, what or something like that. Yeah. To have a statewide program rather than a utility specific program. Alright. Yeah. But that study will be here next year. See you. I think it's next year. I see. Is when you'll take get up for consideration. So it's not ready. But What study is that? Could it be like [Dara Torre]: I have to look it up. [Speaker 6 ]: That was also in Act one seventy nine, wasn't it? Or Is it mentioned? I just I think that's where we put it. I can't remember where we put it. No. [Dara Torre]: It was in another bill. I'm sorry. Housekeeping bill. [Speaker 6 ]: It was in the housekeeping bill, the PUC bill. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. That's right. So that study, though, won't put that for you until next session. Victoria, could you find that Yes. [Chair Kathleen James]: And just so this just so we know what study we're anticipating and when great. [Speaker 0 ]: All the subject in reducing the energy burden for low income households. It seems to me that's pretty consistent with a lot of current policy. We put on weatherization dollar to provide more subsidies to lower income in its efforts as we do. [Speaker 6 ]: So Right. We're already doing a lot of this. And so just want us to be aware of what we're doing Yeah. And what the impact is that the households are. It just isn't part of our planning process right now intentionally. So you might read reports from the from efficiency Vermont. They'll include an analysis of energy burden at the household level in their report, but we don't require it. They just do it. But we might want that. We might want others to contribute to that as well, like Vermont Gas and the Burlington Energy you know, Burlington Electricity Department, anyone who's contributing to that effort. We we would like to know the full impact of all of those programs that are currently in implementation that are driving down energy burden at the household level and making it more equitable. And then we'd also like to see some potential intentional planning around, you know, what's what's a reasonable amount that we could what are all the different tactics we have that are available to us for driving down the total energy cost at the household level. What do we want yeah. What do we wanna do? [Speaker 7 ]: So the utilities that came in here and specified or testified, excuse me, Burlington Electric has a [Speaker 6 ]: low income [Speaker 7 ]: situation. Green Mountain Power has a seventy five percent for people of [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. They're energy assistance program. [Speaker 7 ]: Yeah. Okay. So they they all have some energy efficiency programs. Are you intending this to be one statewide concept from all the other seventeen utilities of [Speaker 6 ]: So this isn't a program. It's just it's just it's just a a goal of our state energy policy is that we would be implementing k. Our our energy policy would aspire to reduce [Speaker 7 ]: So this is a policy statement? [Speaker 6 ]: This is a policy statement that requires in our energy planning that we try to aim towards this. We're aiming towards affordability, trying to encourage the state's economic vitality. We're trying to do all of these things with our state energy planning, and we should also be trying to do this. We're already doing a lot of this, but it's not framed out in terms of our state's energy policy policy. Yeah. And it doesn't require any particular distribution of energy burden at the household level, just that we're trying [Speaker 5 ]: to make it more equitable. [Speaker 6 ]: And it doesn't define what equitable means either, so that's that's up to us to define it more clearly if we'd like to. [Speaker 9 ]: There we go. The definition again. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. It's the portable. Alright. Good. Is that good for more questions on that, Bill? We have one more bill. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Good. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Rep. Logan, hang in there. Yep. Almost there. Okay. [Speaker 6 ]: So as I'm sure you're all aware, we also had a report back on the heat standard. One of the recommendations out of that report was to establish a thermal efficiency benefits charge on reg unregulated fuels on page three of these bills where the policy change lies within the context of the current statute. So this would create a thermal efficiency benefits charge. This would be a volumetric charge that would be used to pay for thermal efficiencies programs. And it would it'd be a charge on fuels that would then go into the electric electric efficiency fund. [Chair Kathleen James]: Is this and I'm sorry again that I didn't check. [Speaker 6 ]: Nope. That was I was gonna ask presumption. Of the answer. The answer. [Chair Kathleen James]: Presumptive of you. Yeah. Presumptive of you. I I was gonna ask, and I I didn't go back to check it before you came in today. I I know that the PUC and its clean clean heat check back report recommended or suggested an alternative path would be a thermal efficiency benefits charge. Is this structured the same way as what the okay. Yes. So, basically, it's just picking up the from that second checkback report, what the PUC recommended or suggested or asked said we could consider as an alternative path to the yeah. To the standard. Making standards complicated, not scaled properly for Vermont, you might want to look at a thermal benefits charge. And this language is similar to the way they structured it. [Speaker 7 ]: Yes. [Speaker 6 ]: Okay. Or if that was the attempt. Okay. Yeah. So recognizing that it seemed unlikely that we were going to be implementing rules for the clean heat standard this year. I felt it was important to draft a bill that would implement the recommendation of the PUC. [Chair Kathleen James]: So the Do you recommend the funds flowing into the electric [Speaker 6 ]: efficiency fund, or did they establish Yes. I believe so. I mean, I don't know. It's been It's been a while. Now. Since I've, been working on this. But, yeah, there was I'm actually trying to go back and remember the discussion that we had around this. Originally, legislative council was suggesting to me that funds go into an alternative location. And then I referred back to the study, I believe, and have her clarify that it should go into the electric relations fund. [Dara Torre]: Alrighty. You might be thinking of the one of our bills that's changed the name of that fund to energy, I think Yep. Or had just struck electric so that it it would also take in the weatherization and not I think maybe it's s fifty six. [Laura Sibilia]: Energy. It's sixty six. [Dara Torre]: Yeah. The energy. They changed the name of that. Yeah. I think for that very reason, I think we'll see. [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. It can bring in thermal. And then I think the other I'm actually thinking about another bill of the conversation that I had around another bill that that I've already presented to you, the one that would the one that's more focused on energy efficiency utilities work. Right. Right. Moving through the committee process over on the senate. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. Wow. Right on. Crazy. [Vice Chair R. Scott Campbell]: Yeah. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alrighty. Rep Logan, thank you so much. [Laura Sibilia]: Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: And we can go off

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-03-21 1:00pm

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: