Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back, everybody, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We are discussing the Energy Efficiency Modernization Act. My name is Kathleen James, and I am from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael, Southworth, California too. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Marsha Morrow, my name is Chris.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And joining us in the room

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Aaron Springer with Burlington Electric.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Amber Widmer, Burlington Electric.

[Dana Lee Perry (Necrason Group)]: Dana Lee Perry, New Crasson Group.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. For the record, thanks for reaching out.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Alan Genchak. I'm the director of the division of energy and fish resources at the Department of Public Service. I'm here to talk about jump right into it?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's all you.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Great. So I just I don't have much to say today. I just have a couple of key points that I wanna make just to get the department's feelings on EMA on the record. So the first thing I would I just wanna say, generally speaking, we do not support the extension of EMA per se, although we do make an exception for some type of provision to allow BED to operate with regulated fuels in their TTM, the Thermal Efficiency and Process Fuels programs. Wanna acknowledge that their service territory in the way that it overlaps with BGS' service territory makes it particularly difficult to deliver that program, for unregulated fuels because there are so few customers. And so some type of accommodation to allow them to work with BGS to address regulated fuel customers if we feel is an appropriate appropriate thing to extend. But on the EMA front itself, we have some concerns with, I guess, the lack of accountability of that of that money and the way that it's used. And so I think the first point is that so far, there has been little to no demonstrable uplift from the additional layering on of the FEMA funds, the programs that it's been flagged to. And there are a number of examples, but I think it both distorts the market in ways that are sort of outside of the rules of what other DUs are are afforded. Namely with tier three programs, the layering of incentives has pushed the amount that BED can pay for similar measures that other DUs offer in their tier three programs well beyond what the avoided compliance payment is, which is supposed to be sort of the ceiling threshold on what is it's not directly cost effective, but it's like a proxy, I would say, for sort of the cost effectiveness of the program requiring GHG reductions or or reduction of cost fuel.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Sorry? Sorry.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Sorry. Go ahead.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Sorry to interrupt.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. This is a question for you,

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: chair. Do we wanna hear just a quick overview of what tier three is, or does everybody else need

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: to Yes. I'm sorry. I couldn't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. My gig. Thanks.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Sure. So tier three is one of the pathways under the renewable energy standard that allows the distribution utilities to retire credits through customer sited equipment. So there's a number of tiers that sort of reduce in focus and sort of centric ranks. So have tier one, which is just sort of any any, wholesale power purchases that reduce fossil fuel consumption. Tier two is within the state of Vermont. Tier three is sort of on the customer side, etcetera, etcetera. So they kind of shrink down in focus. And so the tier three programs largely they're allowed to address any any unregulated fuel reduction, but largely they have focused on fuel switching, namely heat pumps and a little bit of heat factor. Wanna make sure I'm representing that correctly. And so the tier three programs are allowed to spend you know, the the the distribution utilities are allowed to spend repair dollars to acquire these renewable energy credits by reducing fossil fuel. And so what EMA allows the ED to do in the same sort of unique case is layer those funds on top of tier three, thus sort of pushing the amount of incentive they can offer well beyond what any other DU could offer. And so, you know, there's questions around distortion of the market, but I think also just from what we've seen, you know, the incentive levels have nearly doubled in the EV's case compared to what was on offer with no increase in participation in the programs. And I would say on the EV side, the department did some process evaluation in the market to assess sort of the effectiveness of EV rebates in general. And again, in the cases where EV dollars were added, less than a third of participants in the program said that the money was actually meaningful in influencing their purchasing decision to to proceed with an EV purchase. And so we would argue that congress of, you know, roughly two thirds of participants in the program were planning on buying an EV and just took the money anyway, which we feel is Good question. Yep. It was that before the federal credits went away? Yes. Yeah. So now we're in a different We are in a different world, and that is an important caveat. That that that is worth trying to tell. But in general, you know, we feel that with that amount of free ridership in a program that there could be better uses of that money to affect GSE reductions in more more meaningful and direct ways. And so I think on the third point, you know, there's the market distortion and questions about pre ridership aside, you know, generally speaking, the the EMA money going into TEPF and some of it's layered on tier three, and I think Darren already presented on this with their budget breakdown is, but it's roughly 20%, maybe a little over 20% of the three year budget is actually going towards nonfuel switching measures. And our concern is that fuel switching measures, while good at reducing GHGs, pose the potential to cause material harm by increasing people's energy burden. And I think this is particularly true in VGS territory where a fuel switch away from natural gas to an electrified system, even a heat pump, which is extremely efficient, has the potential to significantly increase overall thermal energy costs. And so weatherization is a very hedge against that, and we would argue that we would like to see a better balance at the very least between expenditures on weatherization and expenditures on fuel switching. So Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: One of the mechanisms for increasing the energy burden, the energy caught to the customer would be that a heat pump offers cooling in the summer. Is that is that sort of one of the mechanisms that that's what we're talking about here?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: In terms of reducing the energy burden or increasing

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the energy burden, so called increasing the energy cost overall.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Well, no. That that that is true. Yes. And in general, that does cause an increase, but I'm talking just in terms of ther providing thermal

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just just heating in the in the winter.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Heating BTUs in the winter.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Because my guess is so

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: It's so expensive per per

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: per Exactly. Per Deliver BTU after after Right.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: And accounting for efficiency. Furnaces are incredibly efficient, etcetera, etcetera. Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Yep. Thanks.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Thank you.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: I have heard that Massachusetts that uses natural gas Mhmm. They have a heat pump rate, seasonal heat pump rate

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: That's correct.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: To get right after

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Started this.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Is this something that Vermont's going to explore?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Is a docket right now that I believe Commissioner Allen has has suggested that is looking at alternative rates. And I I apologize. I don't know what the status of that is currently, but I know that that is that is on the bus. Can can you explain that briefly?

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: So I guess in in the case of Massachusetts, all of their utilities have to offer a seasonal heat pump rate that's lower, and it accounts for the additional sales so that apparently it's revenue neutral for the utility. But it's a significant savings because of the point you're making that gas. Your gas bill might be lower than your electricity bill, especially what's going on in that unregulated market. So I just thought that's an intriguing affordability effort that we should consider in our state.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Thanks, Rachel.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. So If I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: could let Ribilia jump in a couple of lines. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry, and I'm sorry to have stepped out. I have my phone is ringing off now because someone's trying to get my attention. But there was you were talking about the tier three, Yashana. I just wanted to make sure that I understood, and I may have missed it when I stepped out, the concern of the department, which is that BED was able to offer larger incentives to their ratepayers than the other DUs. Mhmm. That's the concern of

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: the department. It's not just that it's large larger incentives, although there is there is some parity consideration of what that does in terms of market pricing. But the bigger issue as far as department's concerned is that that increase pushes the total amount that they can offer beyond what the normal threshold would have been in terms of the maximum amount that they could spend because there are there's what's called the alternative compliance payment,

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: which

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: is meant to be sort of the Yeah. Backstop on the maximum amount that any PU could spend per per credit or per, you know, ton of card, whatever unit you wanna use. But the ability to layer EMA funds on that allows them to push beyond what that limit is and offer more money.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or before Is that including the federal incentives that are all gone? I'm I'm a little bit lost in time.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: No. This is just in the context of what they can offer in tier three incentive and what they can layer on top of it with with the even dollars.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And so my my question was looking for clarification that that's more than most of the DUs, and you said yes, and, but I'm still missing the and. Oh. Oh, yeah. I'm missing the and.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: The and is that it it's pushing them outside of what is cost effective, if I guess it's it's not it's not technically cost effective at that one, what they're offering. And because the even money is not not accountable for cost effectiveness in the same way, that fact is ignored because it's in addition to. So the normal tier three incentive is still within good clients, but this extra money allows them to push past that limit.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, madam chair, if I could just get thirty more seconds. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm not really I'm struggling with this. I'm just struggling with the cost of my business. I might need this for, like, my sixth grade neighbor if you could explain it to us. And we all Can I try to Go ahead?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's a cost effectiveness calculation that applies to all the DUs, and whatever that calculation is, it's a real, whether you would agree with it or not, whether I would agree with it or not, that's the limit on all the DUs that they can spend using Tier three, getting Tier three credit for that. BED being able to use EEM money, they can exceed that threshold that limits all the other TUs.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Am I getting that? Yeah. That's correct. And and so upfront, the the tier three program has looked at all of the costs and benefits societally from what it what it means to reduce a, you know, a ton of greenhouse gas through the tier three program. He said, you know, the benefits in

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: terms

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: of avoided carbon emissions and the benefits of additional sales through electrification, which can help have downward pressure on rates, etcetera, etcetera.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Costing more than it's

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: worth. Exactly. Yeah.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Got it.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. So the the amount that they would outlay is is

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: department's estimation. Estimation.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Yes. In the in the total amount. And so that, you know, the tier three portion of the program is is in compliance, and it's below that threshold. But with the addition of EMA money, it allows them to spend beyond that threshold.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is it do you have data on those?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Yes. Not on me, but

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I Okay. I I would really be interested.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you. Sorry. Quick question on tier three. Are you or is there currently a PUC or receiving?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: There are several. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: yeah. There's a there are a couple of of proceedings that are touching tier three, and there's one that's actually looking at the interplay between tier three and the EEU programs.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Okay.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Trying to see if there are you you know because they exist more or less in silos. There's some linkage with heat pumps, but even there, it's sort of arbitrary. So we're looking at ways that we could kind of bring that more into alignment too. And then there's a document on affordability that's touching up tier three. There's a couple of So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the proposed heat pump rate is for the heating season. Heat pump. Correct. And it is digitally controlled through some sort of communication with the heat pump and the meter Yes. Or or some sort of

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: I believe Massachusetts, there's actually a widget that goes on the heat pump so that you don't have to actually

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: A granite circuit board. Yeah. You can call it some type that. Less invasive. I don't think you need electrician. So Well, no. But it goes back to the what's position on electric replacing storage heat, stuff that's heated bricks in the stored heat during the evening and released during the day. I think it's called a storage heat rate in GMP territory. We're getting rid of we don't want resistive electric heat any

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Correct. Yeah. I would say that that's generally true. Most expensive way. It it's a 100% efficient, but it's just a very expensive I'm just wondering if it's okay to ask some to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to some of these.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't let's let DPS finish testimony, and then happy since you're here. Happy to have a conversation. And then the question percolating in my mind is whether you two would be in a position to figure this out and come back to us with some compromise. So

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: I I believe so. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. But go ahead.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: I'm pretty much done there, I think. I, you know, I I just wanted to hammer home on that point that, you know, all other things being equal, the department just would really like to see more emphasis on weatherization. Fuel switching tends to you know, as I've said, there's free ridership. It's market rate, which means that people of means tend to take advantage of those programs more. And in terms of addressing energy affordability, it can be you know, at best neutral and sometimes counterproductive. And so we would just like to see weatherization, which is a tool to, you know, improve energy affordability and its still efficiency. We just like to see that emphasized more. So I'm

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: try to put all of these together. I think you said at the beginning that public service would support BED being able to use TEPF therapy TEPF money for

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the regulated fuel for for Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: For death. Just not not being able to use it for layering on this. But the but the the EEM, the EMA, is is the mechanism that authorized them to yeah. I said I get to still get the. Right? Is that is that they they they get that separate, but it's

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: not through the through this email. No. And and and we were we would would wanna be very clear. Like, that is Burlington Electric Department ratepayers' money. They should get that money. They should be able to spend in their service territory. Okay. Absolutely. 100%.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And it looks like your proposed solution is to let EMA expire and do permanently adopt something that was in act one forty two. And I haven't looked at the statutory references. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to get back to what what is EMA letting them do? That that is.

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: The part that we have the the issue with is the sort of unaccountability of the money. So if if you know, it it sort of takes it out of the normal key performance indicators, you know, that all the NPRs, GPIs don't apply to that carve out. And so we would just, I guess, like to see those apply to it again so that it it subject to the same rules of cost effectiveness and prudent expenditure, ratepayer dollars, etcetera.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm I'm still I'm still going back. I'm I'm missing I'm missing a link here. EMA is allowing BED to do what exactly?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Carve out a certain portion of money and Of their of their TEPF money. Correct. And it basically can be spent on projects that don't comport with the normal rules of what TEPF is supposed to be, how it's supposed to be spent. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So it's sort of It doesn't affect the amount of TPF. No. They get they still get they still get their share of TPF. Correct. Correct.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Alright.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: So it sounds like you you support a permanent adoption of the language that would allow the carve outs, but you wanna have more control over the cost effectiveness? We

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: would yes. We would just like to see the same cost effectiveness rules apply.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: But that's what happens during your perennial plan of negotiation. Right?

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: Not with the $100. Those are we we have no ability to negotiate that. And we don't we don't evaluate it. It's just completely outside of the zero.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: So with that language, we have to be this.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So this is where it's good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And if we don't I think what Dara said earlier is that if we don't address this, it is gonna expire. You're gonna get your money, and a big chunk of your money is gonna be fenced off, and you're not gonna be able to spend it. So we need to figure

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: this Most of it.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Not all.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So do we wanna swap seats here? Or okay. Sorry.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For the record.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Dara Torre, general manager of Burlington Electric. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We've been Tops,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: feelings? We've been

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: accused of having strong rebates, and I plead guilty. We do have good rebates. So hearing the department's testimony, I would offer a few thoughts. One is we've definitely seen that there is more customer uptake with the enhanced incentives that we've been able to offer through this program than there might be otherwise. Best example is back during 2020 when we first started implementing some of this with PUC approval, our heat pump adoption went from anemic to exponential curve. We actually have now over 3,200 heat pumps adopted in Burlington, and back then, it was a fraction a small fraction of that number. And it's true that if you give a customer more money for a piece of technology, all things equal, and they're interested in adopting it, they're gonna adopt it at a greater rate. There may be issues as I talked about earlier, and I think more so with the EV credits previously that you could argue around free ridership and other things. I think some of those on the EV side don't exist anymore. So I I would I would argue back a little that there is, I think, a benefit to having these stronger incentives. And in a moment where we know we're not meeting any of our particular goals around the deployment of these technologies and the federal government has created a massive headwind, I'm less concerned from a standpoint of having an incentive that might be in a normal period of time perhaps considered a little bit larger than it otherwise might be. We do offer a combination essentially for customers. We we pull from our tier three funds and we pull from our efficiency funds through the energy efficiency modernization act and combine those for one incentive for the customer. So Alec is correct that on the tier three side, we're judged based on whether or not our measure is below the alternative compliance payment. When the legislature enacted the Efficiency Modernization Act, it said for these monies, we're not going to judge you that way. You're able to use them with less regulation and with more flexibility. So I'm not clear, yes, you know, that that the combination isn't still cost effective for getting us a measure. It would just be in addition to what we offer under one kind of existing program that everybody has, which is tier three. We're able to layer in this additional incentive. To be crystal clear though, with our programs that we talked about earlier, there's only three of them that we're proposing to do in this manner, and it's the heat pumps, the EVs, and the multifamily charging program. Everything else I discussed, the geothermal test wells, the income qualified customer electric panel upgrades, the commercial custom programs, none of those are layered incentives or have the necessary concerns that I think Alec described. Those are separate programs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That that's I I actually didn't understand that. So that's good. So the three what are the three?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: The three

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: were EVs, heat pumps, and EV charging for multifamily customers.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: We've identified those as really key technologies where we would like to offer the best possible incentive that we're able to under under the law. And under the law, currently, we're able to do it. And if there was an extension with certain language included, we'd be able to continue to do it. I respect very much, as I said earlier, the department's focus on weatherization. I think Alec has a point that there's not currently a weatherization component to our proposal. I think we could work together and come up with some language that said, okay. We can do some of these things, but we also have to allocate a certain percentage of these dollars towards weatherization. Now BGS, Vermont Gas, does offer weatherization services, so we would be layering our incentive there on top of potential BGS incentives. So we'd be doing the same thing that we're doing in the EV space or in the heat pump space, but I'm not opposed to that. I don't think we need to be overly concerned with the idea that we're bringing two pots of funds together to fund a customer incentive. I think we wanna make sure that the incentives are as strong as they can be. But if the if one of the critiques is you're not doing it with weatherization, we'll say, okay. We'll do it with weatherization. Let's add that to the mix too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: R. R. Campbell's here. It's up first.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Of those three programs or or the incentive possibilities that you mentioned, the heat pump incentives seem like that is a quite questionable cost effectiveness on the from customer economics side super economic side because of, as Howard pointed out, the cost of of nat natural gas, fossil gas is is is so low at at the moment. The incentives for EV purchases, how how what would you say to that be to someone saying, that's why is it that's not that's not fair for Burlington residents to have a higher incentive than anybody else in the state is is is able to get one question. Sure. And and then the other thing that I that occurs to me about the incentives for rental EV charging equipment, that seems like a uniquely uniquely appropriate for Burlington because you have such a high percentage of renters. Yeah.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I would agree with you on that. Yeah. So in terms of the heat pumps, it's true that the customer economics, if you're looking at heating with a heat pump and then you add in the cooling, which is more efficient than any air conditioning system for

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the most part.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Sometimes they're better, but most of the time they're breakeven or sometimes they're worse. But customers aren't just looking at heat pumps from a pure how much does it cost to operate standpoint. Some of them want it because of it it is cleaner technology. Yeah. Some of them want it for comfort. You get a different type of heating and cooling with the heat pump than you do with, like, a baseboard, you know, heating system, for example. And the other piece there that I wanted to reiterate is we're working so you mentioned the the natural gas and the heat pump rates. We that grant that I mentioned, we're working to have bill credit program for customers to reduce the operating cost of heat pumps to make them more cost effective Mhmm. As part of our broader kind of offering. So I agree that we wanna make heat pumps more cost effective, but what we're seeing is, you know, over 3,000 customers, over 3,200 have wanted a heat pump in Burlington for for reasons that include those other, you know Yeah. Necessary reasons, and we we like to support them. On the EV side, I would argue that it's an affordability win to get a customer an EV. You have no or very little maintenance cost.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I know. Understand. But why why why is it fair for a Burlington resident to have an advantage over every anybody else in the state?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Well, I mean, I think with with our if you look at our mix, we were talking about, electric vehicles have a great application in Burlington. We have a relatively, you know, compact service territory. Our customers drive fewer miles on average than a customer elsewhere in Vermont. I think we'd have an average of 8,000 miles a year that a customer drives, and it might be more like 12,000 miles a year for an average Vermonter who's living in a more rural service area. So I'd argue EVs have a greater application, and we've actually seen greater adoption rates in Burlington around EVs. But I'm not necessarily saying Burlington should have a better deal than other utilities. I would support I would personally support giving anyone the flexibility. It's a matter of the environment. Instead of creating a a ceiling that prevents us from going where we wanna go, I'd like to create opportunity for everybody to offer

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So would I. Where's your checkbook?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. Well, I mean, so we're Right here. Know. We're supportive of having everybody have that flexibility. It so happens because of this unique quirk with the TEPF program that we have a source that's appropriate in our view to use to help our customers. But with EVs, do think it is an equity issue too because, like I said, we have almost a quarter of our customers who are getting an EV or a plug in hybrid are income qualified customers. So this is not just going to folks who are, you know, making more money. This is a lot going to income qualified customers. And You said about one quarter? One about one quarter. Yep. And we know that when a customer gets an EV, whatever the upfront cost barrier might be, they're gonna save money on fuel. Even at our public charging stations in Burlington, which is probably the most expensive way you could charge, you're still paying about a buck 75 a gallon equivalent compared to, what, 3 or $4 at the gas station. So we want as many customers as we can to get into an EV to buy our product, electricity, which, you know, roughly two thirds of the dollar you spend with us stays in the Vermont economy, and about three quarters of the dollar you spend at the gas station leaves the economy. We want that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Solar and all.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just just just it's the it's the equity thing that

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: we're bring. Yeah. Yeah. We'd be happy to be supportive of other provisions to help others reach the same level.

[Dara Torre (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you. Dara Torre? I was curious. Do you actually have targets for income eligibility? Because that that gets to the free ridership.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: There are it's like kind of Alec mentioned all these dockets. There's discussion on this question in the docket, which is what are your kind of targets for income eligibility? Are you meeting them? If you're not meeting them, what do we do with that? So the answer is they're they're not requirements. They're not legal requirements in the sense that if you don't meet them, you have to do something different. But we do track that compliance in the PUC context and with the department. And then there are opportunities to say, okay, if you're not meeting these, what are we doing to correct that? And I think in Burlington, we've seen, you know, with our incentive adoption in the EV space, we are doing really well in that, you know, particular category. We've tried offering income enhanced incentives for other pieces of technology as well, more recently with electric motors, electric bikes, things like that as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So the EV incentives are the like. They're available to anybody by their resident, their mailing address, not necessarily whether they're in a living space that they're a electric customer or not.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: As long as they're a customer of ours, they'd be eligible for ours.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So if they rent an apartment where they don't pay the electric bill, they're not eligible for the rebate?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Pretty much almost all, not all, but a lot of our customers who rent do pay the electric bill, generally speaking. But, yeah, it's eligible customers. So I don't know if we've had a scenario where somebody was a Burlington resident but didn't pay the electric bill and wanted an EV rebate. That's an interesting question. We would we would like to provide it to everybody,

[Alan Genchak (Department of Public Service)]: but typically, you have to have a customer account. Yeah. Yeah.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alrighty. So, I mean, we have until crossover to try to help out, but it I think it's better if you guys talk about this and not have us try to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We'll we'll get together. Right.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Thank you again.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: TBD. Yeah. Thanks for bringing us to our attention. It sounds like sure we can figure something out.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We can go off live.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Thank you.