Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live. Alright. Welcome back, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is the January, And we are

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Twenty eighth.

[Speaker 0]: January 28. And we are having to check-in and update. We always like to try to hear from all the utilities. And so today is our day to have a check-in and update with Green Mountain Power. So we'll just quickly introduce ourselves. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Prairie. Richard Bailey from Lamoille too. Michael Southworth, Caledonia. Good for Allent. Allent. Garrett Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Kleppner, Chittenden's 13.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Laura Sibilia, my new two.

[Speaker 0]: Alrighty. Then in the room.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Dana Lee Perry with Nicklassinker. Caledonia with Green Bauschard.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. For the record, hi, everyone.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I'm Candice Morgan from Green Mountain Bauschard. Thank you for having me here today. I have provided some slides that are on the website, and Alex has provided copies. I'll kind of click through that. Figured today we can start with just a general update about who we are, where we serve, and then get into some of the topics that I know you all have discussed recently and throughout the start of the session, and certainly happy to answer questions along the way or whatever way works best for the committee. So we serve about 275,000 customers across Vermont, and you'll see that that's about 77% of Vermont, and specifically in that lime green color that you see on that map. Serve about 85% of our customers are residential, the rest are commercial and industrial customers. When we have district offices spread out throughout the territory, and that's often who is dispatching crews and responding both in storms and sort of as part of our day to day maintenance, we have offices in St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, Montpelier, Brattleboro, Sunderland, Wilmington, and I'm sure I'm forgetting Middlebury, a couple others throughout the way. Then we have operations headquarters at Rutland and another headquarters on Colchester. So we're almost statewide just in terms of our total reach and certainly when you factor in where all of our employees live and work near their communities throughout that service territory. We still have just about 500 employees and about half of those or a little more than half of those are members of the local 300 IBEW union. That includes a lot of our field crews, our call center folks that are out responding in storms and responding to customers day to day. Our call center, we have folks that work in our Colchester and our Rutland offices who are taking those calls and helping to support customers with any questions that they have. We also have distribution designers who are in our local district offices, and they're the ones that opt in if you're calling to connect a generation facility or a new business or a new home, they're the ones that are working with those customers to figure out how we're going to serve them and designing the infrastructure around them. It provided sort of the total number of lines that we have and the miles that we serve there. And then one other point that I just wanted to mention, GMP is a certified B Corp. I think to our knowledge, we are still the only utility who's a certified B Corp, and we've been one since 2014. And so folks that might be familiar with that process from prior roles or connecting with other members of the B Corp space, that means that we have bylaws and governance documents that really codify and recognize our service to our community and our employees and the environment. It's a process that we go through every three years where they review our work, our power supply mix, kind of all those things to make sure that it's still meeting the values and the requirements of that organization. Rutland?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Three things. First of all, perhaps I'm being a vehicle. I've through that process, and it's pretty rigorous.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I thought of you when I was like, I'm going to mention that, and I said, I know for sure you're aware of that process.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: V does not stand for Bram. Just to be aware. Second, I presume you use this slide for other people other than us, just general

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Often, sort of territory.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: The fourth line from the bottom, says mostly rural testimony. Does that mean territory?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: It does mean territory, Yeah. Perfect. See how many times I've presented this slide? A couple. So, I'm

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: catching it. I imagine. And finally, have an actual real sort of technical question. I'm looking at the northern parts of your territory and seeing that it's somewhat fragmented. Does that present any delivery problems or distribution problems?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Not that I've certainly heard anybody specify. I think that it's been that way for quite a while, so we figured out how to work with that being what it is. I know it sometimes maybe creates a little bit of customer confusion or wondering who is there a utility rate? Because they're so you could be pretty, like, close to being neighbors

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: And have that be a different answer. So that's what I've mostly heard about in that space versus specific to our service in that area.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Got it. Thank you. Okay.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: The next slide is just a snapshot that captures our 2024 annual energy mix. And so this is what we have for our 2024 renewable energy standard compliance. This is after RECs that are retired to meet those requirements for 2024. So that is where we are at 79% renewable and 100% carbon free. Obviously, the delta between those two numbers is the nuclear that we have and maintaining our mix to be a 100% carbon free while the renewable energy standard works its way up to the different requirements there. I think the current from the tier one requirement in 2024, I wanna say was something in the high sixties. So we're a little bit tracking ahead of what the statutory requirement was for that. But we are at, as I said, 79 renewable in 2024. As I mentioned, the delta being the nuclear and that that is useful for maintaining a 100% carbon free as we get to the requirements around renewable is useful for tier three and other programs because we're able to have the 0% or having the lower greenhouse gas emissions for our total portfolio and those programs are calculating their benefits as well.

[Speaker 0]: So I was curious about the sections of the pie because they represent contracts, right? Like long term contracts that you've signed? So large hydro, is that just HQ? It's not. Yes.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I think in this instance, is for the most part predominantly HQ. And when does that contract come up? In the mid twenty thirties. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: And then mid twenty third. Mhmm. Hang on. I'm jotting notes. Sure. And then the hydro VT slash New England. So that's existing hydro. So that would be smaller, little hydro like Great what's the one over on the Great River Hydro. Great River. And that's what that is. Right? So there's probably multiple companies in there. Correct. Okay. And then what about your nuclear contracts? In terms of

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: when they expire? Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Is it just one company? Is it more than one company?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: There's a couple that are captured in that mix and also in the mid twenty thirties for most of it. And then some we are joint owners for. And so we are it's a longer term relationship there. So don't know exactly when we're finally sort of Okay. Expire in

[Speaker 0]: that case. So would that be I'm sorry, I'm not remembering the names. Rye Brook and Millstone. Those are the only two. Right?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Sea Brook Sea Brook and Millstone.

[Speaker 0]: That's right. Yep. Sea Brook. Yep. Rye Brook. Generators that Yes. Do sometime in the mid twenties or Correct. The

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: PPA. Yep.

[Speaker 0]: And then nonrenew new renewables including solar, is that your tiers?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: That is the tier two. So that is from 2024. So before the newer tier four, which is the larger renewable tier that was created in the last renewable energy standard update. So this represents our tier two requirement from 2024, which is the smaller scale connected to the distribution system in Vermont renewables, which is mostly filled with net metering, solar primarily. Looking at ahead, as we think about the you know, more on tier two and having that percentage increase up to 20% by 2032.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Think it's very good.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: '32. In addition to the net metering, we also see a space for slightly larger scale solar that we have gone out to RFP for, and we did one of those this past summer and into fall to see if we can get some projects in the queue before the ITC goes away for those solar projects. And so those will be coming online, in the short term. And then also, as part of the renewable energy standard update from a few years ago, the legislature chose to allow for slight smaller hydro facilities that are five megawatts or less and also LIHEH certified, which is the Low Impact Hydro Institute, to also be an eligible resource for tier two. So as that percentage increases, we might see more of a mix, in full solar and a little bit of our smaller scale hydro that we have as part of our own generation fleet. Okay. Rick Campbell?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. I'm wondering about the nuclear portion. We heard testimony the other day from TJ about their proposal to move to a clean energy standard instead of renewable energy standard. My understanding is that as of 2030, when your requirement would be 100% renewable, you would have to buy REX to cover that nuclear. And I guess the 21% that's shown here now, that's your active power purchase. Right? Yes. That seems like that's that would be cost pressure. So I guess what what what I'm wondering is how much our cost pressure would if you can if you can talk about that. Sure. And and and whether you see I guess what my understanding about the renewable energy standard update that was passed in 2024 was that that was a delicately balanced bargain among all parties to to come to that. And so how how does GMP feel about being treated as crazy as possible? Yeah.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I wondered when in the testimony we would get to the question. This is pretty yeah. Can we can.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We we put it, Charlie, because I forgot.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: No. I figured. That's right. So get it out of way. So, yes. I think that the renewable energy standard update in a couple years ago, 2324 time frame, did reflect a lot of conversations with a lot of different parties in terms of what makes sense for how we wanna move forward together in this space and what we want to ask of our utilities. What has changed in the intervening time has been a fair amount of whiplash at the federal level in particular related to renewable resources, both in the way of financially supporting them through the investment tax credits or just trying to halt things altogether when you look at offshore wind. Obviously, you know, there's gonna be fits and starts as things wind through the legal process on some of those projects too, but delays just add to more costs, right? And so that can add to more cost pressures. And so, I think that we're certainly examining what the facts are now versus what they had been and what we were seeing when we were talking about updating and updated the renewable energy standard last time. One of the items that I think you have heard about from representatives of Southworth and H-six zero one, as part of that, there's a report that would be asking the commission to evaluate the larger new renewable tier, which is tier four, on an earlier date than was contemplated in the res that passed. The res that passed had that out in the 2029 range. This would bring that forward to you all before 2027, which I think is a helpful I think it would be very useful to have a review of what we are seeing in the region, what those cost pressures are, and quite frankly, where there is even renewables coming online at all, to think through kind of how we wanna move forward together on that. So that's a maybe long winded answer to say that I think the facts are just different now than they were then. And I think it's gonna need to be a conversation as we look ahead. I don't know if it needs to be now, but certainly, probably ahead of next biennium as people kind of contemplate how we want to adapt to a very different environment than it was when that was passed, which is unfortunate, but, is where we are at. In terms of the nuclear piece in particular, you're right. And I listened to mister Horace testimony yesterday, and he captured that kind of cost savings dynamic, in terms of when we look out into the 2030s and to allow for the option of a clean, there would be, yeah, somewhere in the millions, I think per year. It's a little hard to know exactly where prices will be as we look out into the twenty thirties, but I think fair to say that it would be in the millions as we get on into 2030 and beyond. It's probably 4 to 5,000,000 is what I've heard from our power supply team with the information

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that we know right now.

[Speaker 0]: Starting in the mid twenty thirties? Starting in, like, '20

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I think, 2030 and ramping up into the mid twenty thirties as those percentages are different.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So that was annual cost? Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Your

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: power purchasing team, are they are you aware if they are anticipating increases to the cost of nuclear power given what is happening with demand for power and the power markets?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's not there's not currently a lot or any new nuclear right. So, as states are meeting their own clean requirements or cleaner renewable requirements depending on other states, The cost for that has definitely increased versus where it was maybe even when I started at G and P five years ago and certainly before that.

[Speaker 0]: Could you talk a little bit more about the evaluation of tier four options? Sorry, can you remind

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: me about tier four? Sure. So tier four was a new tier that got introduced in the Renewable Energy Standard Update when it was last passed. And that is meant to be what was kind of a, contemplated as a larger scale renewable tier. So you have your tier one, which is your kind of existing renewables. And then you have tier two, like we talked about, which is the smaller scale connected to the distribution system. And then thank you. And then you also have there wasn't really a space for what we were thinking was gonna be coming online, which is more of the offshore wind and larger scale renewables in the region. And so that was a space to allow for new renewables and to fill kind of what was the gap between the existing res before and the newer 100% would be met with those larger scale renewables, which like I said, are just not coming online either at all or at this scale and speed with which folks had projected when the conversation was last visited. And that's tier four.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's tier four. Tier three is

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Tier three is the energy transformation requirements, which is where you see our incentives and some of our other work for folks when they're electrifying their heating or transportation.

[Speaker 0]: That's interesting because I wonder about the timing of an evaluation of report like this. My first thought, honestly, when you said 2029, it was like, okay. That gets us past the insanity, maybe, and into a time when you could, you know, maybe get more I just feel like whatever we study now is everything's changed by tomorrow. And I'm not asking you to speculate on that. Yeah. It's like, I I hear the the thought of, like, maybe we wanna do this sooner, and I think you could do that every day for the next three years and you'd get a different evaluation every day.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: That's fair. I mean, it's definitely a very volatile back and forth whiplash time in terms of what you're seeing, what the headlines are seeing, what's moving forward, what's not moving forward. I do think though, just as a check-in at least, right, to recognize that we have started to see some of those projects We've seen different timelines, we've seen different costs associated with that, and it's helpful to have a little bit of a lead in to when different requirements are going to change so that our team can be preparing for that. Right? And so when we know that we're gonna be at a certain percentage of 2029, we have to think ahead a couple years before we get to that point. Right. And so if there's a desire or a recognition that that might need to look a little different, knowing ahead of time is helpful too. But it is right. You want to find that balance between having the most complete information that you want to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: act on and allowing for enough time to make those adjustments. Sibilia, you want to oh, sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Did you have your hand up,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Tim? No.

[Speaker 0]: What? Sorry. I don't know. You meant it. Go in whenever you want. You had your hands up. Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: just as a follow-up on my last question. You said 4 to $5,000,000 a year, roughly Mhmm. Guess, starting in 2030. And as in terms of a percentage or sort of if I put that into scale yeah how does that

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: it's a great question so currently a rule of thumb that we have is that about $8,000,000 translates in about a 1% reduction in rates for GMP's revenue requirements as they are right now. That changes year to year depending on sort of what the total revenue requirements are. But currently, about $8,000,000 represents a 1%.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's a it's really you've got about a half half percent per year. Yep. Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Can you remind me, looking at this, the Mhmm. Hydrovermodulin, does that include

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Great River?

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

[Speaker 0]: Torre, my question was from Fabi on that report. Who was gonna write that?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: In the version in H six zero one, and also I think in the original res, it was the Public Utility Commission. Okay. Okay. I think that that's all I had on that slide. Alright. The next slide is an overview of our resources, as I would call them. In addition to what we retire for or the previous slide really talked about our res compliance and what that looked like. And then we also have resources that we are using every day to help manage the more dynamic grid, including how do we manage cost pressures when they're showing up, how do we manage supply and demand. And as we look out into the future, that's on a more distributed scale than in the past where you used to have kind of power plant, big transmission lines connecting you to the distribution grid and then smaller scale lines connecting to customers, more and more a lot of that generation and supply is happening at local homes. Whether you've got solar on your roof or you have a battery in your house or you have a vehicle that can be plugged in and tapped as a resource. So the way that things are being managed is just much more dynamic than it used to be. You might remember you had my colleague Josh Castanghay in last year talk a lot about energy storage and kind of what we're doing in that space and how that those resources are really helping us manage the grid. And so I just wanted to provide a quick update on that. So we have more than 8,000 residential batteries installed in homes and those have been installed sort of by customers who are electing into our energy storage system lease program or our bring your own device program. And together, we're able to aggregate that into what folks in the kind of more like utility wonk space like to call a virtual power plant. But it's very real in terms of how it can show up and provide energy when we need it for the grid. And so together with both the residential batteries that we have, some of our larger grid scale storage as well, we're at 75 megawatts of stored energy when you view it all together, which is pretty massive in terms of, the scale for that. I think it's the single largest power source in Vermont when you look at it all together, which is really great. And one clear example of that was back in June 2025. You might remember towards the end of that month, was a pretty hot, like early summertime, and it stayed hot really late into the day, including in the Boston area. And so the regional ISO New England reached a peak demand, which I think went to the highest level since 2013. So they were calling on everything that was out there. And so we were able to use our storage and flexible resources at that moment to show up for the region and provide that power when they need it. And it resulted in about a $3,000,000 cost reduction that directly helps offset costs for our customers. And so otherwise we would have had to purchasing much more expensive power at that time, we were able to use everything that was available in those stored resources and help show up in that way. So that's just one example and that's happening in real time every month, every day, every week with our team when they're looking at and forecasting peak demand, tapping and managing those resources in a way that can help save costs for customers. That has been a huge shift in terms of how we are operating the grid nowadays.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: A quick question on battery storage. Do you have a sense of or the GMP having an opinion about sort of the ideal megawatt capacity for for battery storage in order to satisfy the goals of not having to buy power when it's really expensive?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: That's a great question. I assume our team would say as much of it as possible. I mean, I think what's helpful is that as more of it comes online, because folks are purchasing and agreeing to have these systems in their home largely their local resilience in mind, where they wanna have that certainty that they're not gonna lose power. And we don't access them when we know that there's a storm in the forecast. But I think that the more that's out there, we have to use all of it a little bit less, and that kind of helps us be more dynamic and able to manage that if, you know, especially like we see that Bennington and Windham Counties are gonna have isolated thunderstorms, but we know there's not gonna be any up north. We're able to be much more strategic and surgical in terms of how we're using that, and the more of it that's out there, the better that it is in terms of just being able to use what we need and exactly where we should.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So we don't have a ceiling on this yet?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I don't think so.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Much we can get. As much as we can get. I

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: know you've been looking at non transmission alternatives. That's right. Is this one of those strategies? Yes, absolutely. I think that, I know that the team that's been working on that, it's a combination of load that we can control, so that like looking at EV chargers and the controls that we can apply on those rates and connected resources, then certainly also larger scale energy storage or just sort of that fleet of resources too as an option so that we're able to not have to sort of trip into that territory where we otherwise might need to build more.

[Speaker 0]: That's real concerns. Yes, absolutely. And you guys are putting

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: a price on them? It's a good question. Yes. There has been some work done around all of that as well as part of the long range transmission plan on transmission alternatives. And I think that we might have presented, I think we did present kind of our thinking on that recently, at least in the working group, soon that will be before the PUSD as well for folks to look at. I'm happy to share that. Yeah. If there's anything that you can send up,

[Speaker 0]: yeah, below the link. For sure. Thank you.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I did another slide. Yeah, we touched on the hydro stuff at the earlier one, so don't need to talk about that. This next slide I shared mostly just as a thing to look back on. We've already talked about the value of those virtual power plants, and there's a good link at that bottom that talks about kind of how that shows up across utilities and other things as well. So more of just a learning slide.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Right now. On the EPPs that, factors

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: in I mean, with net metering, I have a question about how you can have batteries, obviously, without solar. Mhmm. But most of the on that, actually, I don't know. Yeah. Maybe do most of the people that have batteries also have solar?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I can get a specific breakdown. I think we would know that, but I don't know offhand.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Because I'm I'm just wondering how you guys calculate the cost shift Mhmm. And how do you factor in? You said there was $3,000,000 in benefit from one at the peak of end. That gets factored into the numbers on the potential cost shift from net metering customers to other customers.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I'm not specific on the net metering. That would show up in, know, costs that we're not having to pay and flow through the customers normally in that instance, in that situation, would either be done in a base rate update or as part of our kinda quarterly power supply adjuster and review. So it's a savings of that space, not necessarily directly netted out with net metering customers, but kind of all in the power supply, like, we have to purchase and how expensive it is at what time.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: There are a significant number of customers who wouldn't have batteries if they didn't have solar, you know, as part of their their personal resilience strategy, So what you're talking I haven't been able to get a real clear

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Formula from anybody about the cost shift and how it's calculated. And I think different utilities might do it differently. And I think department has their own. TJ has his own. So I'm just trying to get some common understanding around the cost shift. So any information that

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: You could pass along

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Would helpful to us.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Absolutely. My colleague Josh is watching, and, also, I will follow-up with him and we kinda put our heads together on what would be useful to share in that space. Yep.

[Speaker 0]: No problem. Sorry. Just wanna make sure I understand what Morrow's saying. Are you are you saying that there doesn't seem to be a commonly shared or used way of calculating the cost shift that results from net metering onto other rate payers that Correct. Everybody's calculating it differently, so we don't really have a handle on what that is.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I I personally do not, and I've been asking around.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, that's inter that's interesting because it's an important factor in our net metering conversations. Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Exactly. Yeah. And I think it you know, like, we heard from what's your Washington? Which like, Washington Electric. They don't have any batteries yet in in their their area, so they don't have the benefits of BPP. So they're cautious. Just different. So they can't peak shave. You know, that's batteries. It's not solar, but I would say they're tied together. Right?

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. For a lot of people. So, yeah, getting a handle on how we actually Think about that. Assess the the cost shift. I think it's important for a lot of our conversations. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I actually wanna follow-up on what you where you're you're quoting as well. It's pretty easy to calculate the the the cost side of it, but how do we how do we evaluate the the financial benefit from the from the benefit? And there's certainly benefit. Identified cannabis benefit from, from batteries, but there's also benefit from, from just playing solar. Right. It's cost shaving in the summertime. So, yeah, so I assume there was some sort of, you know, a calculation of that in this idea of caution, but it sounds like there isn't necessarily. Yeah. We really should have sort of an accepted methodology for how how we calculate the cost shift and include a financial analysis of the benefit as well, which I I recognize is hard to get a handle on, but it's it's more than zero.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah. We can definitely follow-up.

[Speaker 0]: I'll jump in with our

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: spends a little more time in that space. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Just wondering if this is coming up at all in resilience for some

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Not explicitly around sort of local like, individual resilience, although there has been some discussion about, like, what the value of resilience might be to individual customers. And then I think how you weigh the solution would look at what that value potentially could be. There hasn't been a specific number or any kind of value yet ascribed to that. But I think the Department of Public Service has been continuing to fine tune their thinking there, and we'll be kind of presenting an update as a straw proposal in that space. And so we'll sort

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of see what what they come back with in that work, in that work.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Rutland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Getting back to the nuclear, if we switch from res to CES to the $8,000,000 cost, it's not an issue.

[Speaker 0]: $8,000,000 cost.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: You said you needed that much to buy the ranks Oh.

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

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Not 8,000,000. The $8,000,000 I had mentioned was about a 1% equivalent to, like, a 1% rate need or decrease for GMP right now. The estimates in terms of the savings for not having to purchase racks in the 2030s is about $4,000,000 or a little bit around that in the around that per year. So that would

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: be the amount in the twenty third.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But if we go to the CLEP, the CES, does that that's not required? Correct. Right? You say $4,000,000.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Would be A dollar. 0.5%. A dollar 21 per month per customer on average.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Can you be more specific? Point high. It stopped making pennies, so I don't do a decimal. I have to have had it anymore.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: When do your nuclear contracts run out?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: 2035 mid twenty thirties. I think most around right around 2035.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: When would you start looking to repurchase those?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: We're certainly always looking at what's out there in terms of available resources now and into the future. So I think it's maybe too cute of an answer, the answer is largely that we're always looking to see what's gonna come out ahead because even if even if we extend those or work in that space, there's still a gap in terms of our overall need as we get out into the 2030s for other resources. So we're just always looking to see what are gonna be the most cost effective ways to meet that now and into the future. So that's why, you know, to go back to that earlier point, think just having that a sense of what that path is gonna be is helpful as we think about it.

[Speaker 0]: And are you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: you all have to be aware of what's happening with the nuclear power markets right now and just with what's happening with data centers and other large load users? What what is happening with the nuclear power markets, like, the future right now?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: The future right now? I mean, it's definitely as you said, they are in very high demand or to meet the needs of those larger loads and to work in that space, whereas maybe before, it hadn't been a space that was in as much high demand. So it's certainly a different environment, but I think there's also been some a lot of discussion around potential new technologies and other things that could help meet that demand. It's not a tomorrow thing. It's maybe, you know, five, seven, ten years into the future in terms of when we might be able to see some of that. But creating that option and potentially that path in Vermont, you know, make sense at the right time as we think through what we're gonna be also needing to meet for increased demand in the region, what's getting built, and where we would want to have an option to purchase that for customers

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in a stable way. And the projected the cost. I know I asked you this before, but the projected cost can take this into effect, the increasing

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: It takes into effect as much as know right now. Right? I mean, of course, things can change and they often do in that space. But with what we know now, that's what we would be projecting. And, one more question. We've got do you have

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: a sense, and I do not, and if you don't, but others do at GMP, would welcome this answer, of another time where we saw this much volatility in the energy sector?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: That's a great question. I'm happy to ask. I think, certainly, I've been at GMP now just over five years. So I I have haven't spent a ton of time in that space, but certainly, I'm happy to ask and think back on. Obviously, there have been periods of transformation and changing requirements and changing work in that space, but, yeah, it's hard to think about. Personally, it seems like we're in a period of just, like I said, kind of the volatility, but also the whiplash that you have at the federal level and sort of what's changing and what those priorities are

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

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: way that feels much more rapid fire than it may be used to, and that feels different. But I think that certainly we you know, in the last five years, there has been a lot of that from the Ukraine war and some of those other pressures and unexpected things. And, yeah, it's true. We're we've been in a period of great volatility recently.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I guess I would just say one of the things that I admire the more I learn about Vermont in particular, know, our utilities, our regulatory folks, all of the adjacent entities, is the stability that we have created through, I would say, pretty conservative long term planning. And I think that's been to Vermonters' benefit.

[Speaker 0]: Absolutely.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's why in New England, you know, we are and continue to be Mhmm. Even with our ambitious climate goals, the lowest rates in New England. So it's that frame that I'm just kind turning around in this area of huge volatility, you know, what is prudent and wise. Mhmm. Absolutely.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I I know I did watch the testimony that you took from TJ yesterday and I've one of the chart or one of the images that really stood out to me was that chart of the volatility across the region and where Vermont's line was and sort of the really strong reasons for that being all the points that you just spoke of, Representative Sibilia, I think at GMP, our regulatory structure too related to our multi regulation plan and the work that we've done with the commission and Department in that framework to kind of create that opportunity for predictable and smooth paths instead of that back and forth that you see in other states. Also, because we are remaining fully integrated and have not deregulated like the rest of New England. And so that's also why it can be a little hard to do apples to apples comparisons on some of the other policy areas that we've talked about or that you all have spent time on because a lot of what other states are doing in some of their rate design or response to data centers or other things that they're facing are largely in response to the fact that they are deregulated, whereas our structure kind of protects us from that just by nature, which is great because it means that there's a lot of space for those benefits that can happen from some of that work to flow through customers without there needing to be special legislation or other things that are passed to address that. Like, we have the regulatory framework that helps protect customers in that space and it's, know, through the work that the legislature has already done and certainly through the work across street as well.

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

[Speaker 0]: wanna make sure we give you enough time to get to your slide. Oh, sure. Only because I think we have led to counsel coming in. Oh, Absolutely. He's on the clock. I think she has to be somewhere else after.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: No problem. We've touched on a little bit that we've talked about, so I'll just click through it quickly.

[Speaker 0]: Well, no. I we've got fifteen minutes. I just wanted

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Good. Pivoting slightly. So we've talked a lot about power supply. We've talked a lot about, you know, renewable energy standard and other stuff in that space, But I wanted to turn to our resiliency work. And if I have talked to any of you or any of you have talked to any of the GMP colleagues that you know or have spent time on recently, you certainly have heard us talk about the impacts that storms have had on our customers, both directly those customers that have experienced a lot of the damage and outages that the more volatile and severe weather have caused, and then also the cost associated with restoring for or after storms. And so we have been working to deploy and accelerate a lot of our resiliency type work, and that takes the form of store hardening, which I I have talked about before in the committee, which is where we're doing work on above ground lines to make them more resilient and prevent outages from happening in the first place. That's the spacer cable construction that you'll see around, which is like kind of that diamond shape. It allows for trees to fall on the top wire and not cause an outage or bounce off, that helps us manage and sort of prevent them from happening in the first place. It also means relocating lines that have been historically in what used to be pastures, but are now forests in a lot of parts of the state, and relocating them to the right of way, which makes for easier restoration and kinda prevents some of that initial damage from happening in the first place. And then also undergrounding. And we're doing a lot of that undergrounding work on some of our more, actually, rural distribution lines where folks are really prone to outages. They're in very vulnerable places near mountainsides and experience a lot of the damaging windstorms in particular and some other things that we've been seeing. And so we've through the support from the Public Utility Commission and other things that and the department that we have worked on, we were able to advance that and really focus on the areas of our system that have been hit the hardest recently, which are Central And Southern Vermont. And so you'll see just that list of towns that we have done projects in. Some of you that are in that area have seen that work happening. And we have now, to date, over the last, I think, eighteen months, maybe a little less, done 70 miles of underground work and just over 40 miles of overhead storm hardening. What's great is that we're starting to see where we have really focused that work on some of the circuits that have historically had some of the worst damage. There have been wind events and other things that historically definitely would have caused outages. We've seen a 95% reduction in customer hours out per event where there have been events there. And that results in real savings. You know, we've talked a lot about major storms, but we also carry a minor storm budget. And so anything that we can do to help reduce that also helps reduce costs for all of our customers as well. And just wanna give a shout out to the legislature too for the Act two fifty exemption that passed, I think it was three years ago now. We came in kinda last minute in the legislative process. That's not like my favorite way to do it, but it was on the heels of some of those really big storms that we saw. And we're like, we know we can do this work. We just gotta do it fast. And so the legislature helped advance that, and that goes out through 2030. So we're able to rebuild lines or relocate to the right of way and not have to also go through the act two fifty process. We still go through and get local town permits or other things as needed, but it has just helped speed up the work that we're doing. And I think it's been a really big success for the towns and locations where we see that happen. Just wanted to give you all an update on that. We touched on this before, so I'm not going to linger along on this just sort of general update on different programs that we have underway. One thing I wanted to mention though, the energy storage assistance program under energy storage programs, that was an ARPA funded program that we worked in partnership with the department on targeting income eligible customers and giving them energy storage systems, so backed up batteries. We have been identifying customers who are on our energy assistance program and also have experienced a lot of outage events in terms of where we are offering them this option. And so I think we've got 23 systems installed and more in the queue there as well. So that's a that's a nice success story in terms of areas where we're able to get that out for customers. And I just wanted to mention too our energy assistance program specifically. I know you all have heard from the PUC on their Act one forty two report, but one of the, you know, key things that GMP offers for income eligible customers is our energies assistance program. It's a 25% discount for customers that are at a 185% of the FPL or below. We partner with the Department for Children and Families to do the income verification for that. And so they either review a customer application directly, or if a customer applies to the crisis fuel or the fuel assistance programs and other programs that have a similar income threshold, then they get auto enrolled in our program as well. And we just recently updated that tariff to allow for multiple opportunities for arrearage forgiveness for folks that are on that program prior to that update. When you enrolled, if you had a balance, that balance would be forgiven or covered by the cost of that program. But we've changed it so that now it's up to two during the time of your enrollment on the program. So there's a little bit more flexibility for us to work with customers and figure out kind of when the right time is to access that. And that helps prevent disconnects, and it also helps prevent sort of sharing those costs of unpaid debt and stuff to the rest of our customers as well. That's been a good way to implement that. We were happy to see that that got approved after its review at the PUC. There's a slide in here on our multi regulation plan, which I was very thankful that you all heard from TJ yesterday just because there's a lot to talk about today. And he gave a nice foundation in terms of how that process has worked and sort of how GMP fits within that. But I just wanted to leave this here. I'm happy to provide additional information as well. But just as a reminder, the MIRP is a framework for how we deliver services to customers, do our capital projects, work over a period of four years. It's also how our certain costs are either updated annually as part of a base rate review process or reviewed as part of a quarterly adjusters. There's multiple opportunities for that kind of review. And really, comes down to what are the costs that are in our direct control and what are the costs that are not within our direct control. Those that are typically are fixed for the life of the plan. So anything that goes over that, it's you know, we eat that. It's not a cost to customers. Ones that are more volatile and subject to change, we go through a forecasting process and review with the department before we and then ask for any rate changes associated with that that get reviewed by the PUC. We're in the middle of, a process right now to review at the Public Utility Commission our next multiyear regulation plan, which would go into effect October 1 and run through GMP's fiscal year 2030. We also, have typically done a full rate case, so a full cost of service rate case leading up to a new MYRP, and we just filed that in January. Well, I guess it's still January. Two weeks ago in January. And so that is a rate request that was filed mid January, which would be in effect October 1, starts the nine month review process. It is a seven and a half percent rate request that we filed. The single largest drivers there are the increased cost of power supply and regional transmission, and then also certainly inflationary pressures related to materials, equipment, some of our contracts that we do have for long term, which still on balance provide that stability often have an inflation adjuster for when prices are higher. And so we're certainly seeing the effects of that as well as part of this. And then property taxes, healthcare, kind of all those pressures that folks are feeling out there. So we're just starting that process. It's a fully litigated case, which means that the department is acting as the public advocate and they'll hire experts and we'll have experts and it'll go through that whole process. The PUC ultimately will likely issue a decision on that sometime in September. I'm happy to follow-up with anyone on that. I just didn't want the time to go back without you have heard that from me as well.

[Speaker 0]: Just only wanting to continue, we talked with TJ about this, to continue to understand the impact of regional transmission upgrades because that keeps seems to keep coming up as the top driver of increased electric rates Yeah. For all of us across the ISO region. And so the more we can learn about that,

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: the better. Absolutely. And I think the department I mean, they have been doing a fantastic job at really pushing that issue at the regional level and trying to create more process where there hadn't been any for some of those asset condition projects. And a huge shout out to Commissioner Johnson and his team for leading that effort. And you heard a little bit from, I think it was Sarah at ISO last week when she was into about some of those early stages of what they're doing in response to that. So, yep.

[Speaker 0]: I was just wondering. So in the materials you submitted, do you have, like, a return on equity number that's part of that? Yes. What what is it?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: It's a great question. So it's based on the and it's the same actually in the FY '27 rate case. It would be the same as it is in our current rates structure as well in our current MYRP. It would be updated by the I think it's the twelve month treasury yields, I can follow-up with more information on that for you as well. The next slide that I have is just a mention on the SQRP, which is the Service Quality and Reliability Plan. I know you all heard a little bit about that when the department and others came in a couple of weeks ago. That provides both quarterly and annually reports that we file with the PUC and the department reviews with metrics that are based on our call answering performance, due diligence, good work, business practices, billing, metering, that kind of stuff, as well as the system reliability. And those have ranges that if we miss it by a certain amount, there are some financial penalties associated with that. But it's a really good opportunity for us to see both quarterly and every year how our overall performance is doing, how our customers feel about us. There's a customer satisfaction performance. Happy to report that our 2025 results are at 92.7% in terms of overall satisfaction with GMP. And so we're really proud of that number and also proud of our overall performance in that space. As part of our NYRP as well, we have annual metrics that we report on, and that includes everything from innovative pilot performance, how many batteries are deployed, what does our distributed generation interconnection process look like, timeliness, how much capital investments are made in the current fiscal year. There's a long list, maybe 70 something metrics. And that's another good opportunity for us to share with the department and the PUC our annual work. And we also, at that same time, provide an update on our IRP and how we are adhering to our goals within our IRP, which was also just recently approved. So, yeah, we're actually all those are due on Friday, so I'm in like report a loser mode. But good. There's a lot of information there. And, yeah, I think the last slide, we've touched on a little bit already. So I'm happy to just really talk about all the shifts that we've seen in the federal energy policy and what our main focus is. But I'm happy to take any last minute questions that you have and always happy to come back on any topic.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Just a a quick one. With all these investments that we're sending to iOS ISO, New England for transmission grades, are we actually seeing better or more reliable transmission as a result of that, or is that just more kind of generic strengthening of the New England grid and, you know, and that doesn't really I mean, how direct or nebulous is that investment coming back to us?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah. That's a good question. I mean, I think as TJ said yesterday too, we have very good reliability in the region just in terms of how that shows up. So there is you know, we obviously do have overall good track record in that space. I'm not sure what the incremental value is to it compared to the overall dollar investment though, but it is a good

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: question to think about. Maybe measure it.

[Speaker 0]: So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: back to the pie chart where it showed all of these types of energy that you purchased. Where does nuclear fall in cost in comparison to the others?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Is it in the middle?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is it low? Is it high?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Back of the envelope, and I'm happy to follow-up if I get it wrong, is that it is on the lower end and sort of on par with some of the larger hydro larger existing hydro resources at this point in time. I think before maybe it would have been below that, but now it's kind of a par with what those prices are for some of those existing larger hydro purchases. Mhmm. Thank you. Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Rutland? Have you had an ending experience with the batteries catching on fire, residential, or in your big your big storage facility?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Not in the fleet that we are that we have in Vermont. And

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the ones that are in residential, are they in the basement?

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Some are, and some are also installed outside the house. So sort of attached to your house similar to Okay. Some

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: of them are in the garage.

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Some of them are in the garage. That's right. Yeah. Depends on the the house and the type of battery.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Yep. Always interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks for

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: your time. Of course. And we

[Speaker 0]: are on time. Okay. Go. What about you? When do you have to be somewhere else? 02:30. Okay. Our quest for the elusive easy bill continues. I'm satisfied so far. So we are going to walk through H710, an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities. And just to remind folks what this bill is, we took test oh, okay. We took we worked last year on a bill, s 50, that was kind of a larger solar bill. Was our 25 is the new 15 bill. And in that bill, we talked a little request, which was to ask the PUC to come back to us this year with a definition of plant. Apparently consensus has been reached and that's where we come up with seven ten. But I'm going to turn it over to if you could provide better background and overview than I just did.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Ellen Chittenden, the Office of Legislative Council. I'm here at H 710. So you will recall that earlier this session, a couple weeks ago, the PUC came in, their General Counsel, Steph Hoffman, came in and walked you through the report they did. You have seen their report. They met with stakeholders and they talked about the issues. This is amending the definition in 30 VSA 8,002, which is the definition section for chapter 89 in title 30, which is the chapter on renewable energy programs, and it covers a couple different renewable energy programs, including the renewable energy standard and the standard doctor program and net metering. This definition of plant is used in all of those programs and All of those programs have statutory caps on them. Most of them have an associated incentive. Any time you set a cap on something, people who are trying to get that incentive are always trying to figure out how they can maximize their ability to get that incentive and how much can they get where. And so there have been disputes in the past, actually for a number of years, have been different litigation over the definition of what is a plant. We've referred to it as the single plant issue because the issue comes up around how to determine if two facilities right next to each other are part of the same system, or if they're independent facilities, if they are one plant. And so, in working with the stakeholders as you directed them, the PUC has provided recommended statutory changes to this definition, and that is what is in H. Seven ten. So, the language is on page two of the bill. This bill is not doing anything else, it is just changing this definition. So on page two, definition of plant, which is number 18. Plant means an independent technical facility that generates electricity from renewable energy. Because as I just said, this is the chapter that exclusively deals with renewable energy. The new language starts on page two, line seven. Multiple electric generating facilities, regardless of when each is constructed, shall be considered one plant if the facilities use the same electricity generating technology and are located on the same parcel or contiguous parcels of plant. They then provide three exceptions to this rule. So that is the general test. If on the same parcel or adjacent parcels, there are multiple facilities regardless of when in time they're created and they use the same technology, They are one plant. Same technology is defined on page four. So I'll jump there quickly. They've added a definition here. So it means this a method or system used to convert energy from one form into electric power, including wind, hydro, or water, solar, biomass. And so If it's a solar facility and then another one is added, that is also solar. That is the same type of technology. If it's wind and there's a turbine and another turbine is added, that's the same generating technology. But back on page two, the rest of the definition, there are three exceptions for when this is not true. The first two are about net metering. So, 11. Such facilities shall only be considered separate plans if they meet one of the following exceptions. Subsection A, exception for individual net metering and self consumption applies if facilities are not located on the same parcel of land, are wired to offset consumption on separate billing meters, and supply different retail customers. This feels pretty obvious. This is like when you're in a neighborhood and one house on the street has net metering, and the next door neighbor has net metering. Those are separate systems. Under the general definition, they would have been considered the same because they're both using solid sales and they're on contiguous parcels. But this is setting up that no, there's an exception for that. They are not considered the same plant. I think that's pretty intuitive. You don't want to count them. That's the same. There's two different people. They have different billing meters, and they're different retail customers. Then there's another exception for net metering, but this time under subsection B, it's for multi owner individual net metering on the same parcel. This applies if the facilities are located on the same parcel of land where a common interest community is located, onto page three, are wired to offset consumption on separate billing meters, and supply different retail customers. So there is a definition for a common interest community. It's on page three, line 13. This means retail real estate described in a declaration with respect to which a person, by virtue of the person's ownership as the unit, is obligated to pay for a share of real estate taxes on insurance premiums, maintenance, or improvement of, or services or other expenses related to common elements, other units, or other real estate than the unit described in the declaration. So this is part of property law. It's the same definition that's in title 27, and I think title 27 a. Common interest communities typically refer to condominiums or homeowners associations, and then there's some other types of forms. But we're not talking here about apartment building. We're talking about people who own units in a common scheme. So a homeowners association where there are different owner for each home, but they're part of the same common interest. So, as it's being used here, there's an exception to the single plant rule here. If the systems are located on the same parcel in a common interest community, but there are separate meters and they're for different customers. So, you picture a townhouse that may be a condo, each separate unit can have its own net metering system as long as they have a different meter and are different customers. How we doing? There is one more exception. On page three, there is an exception for co location of renewable energy program facilities. So, I mentioned the types of programs we're talking about. We're talking about net metering, we're talking about standard offer, and then we're talking about renewable energy standard tier two facilities. All of these are smaller facilities considered distributed generation. So page three, line four. More than one facility may be located on the same parcel or contiguous parcels with net metering, standard offer program facilities, or other renewable energy standard tier two facilities when the facilities have separate points of interconnection and not more than the statutory capacity cap for net metering, or the statutory capacity cap for standard offer, is sited on the same parcels or contiguous parcels, and a net metering system or standard offer facility are not sited on the same parcel or contiguous parcels. There is a definition of contiguous at the bottom of this page. It means sharing a property boundary with another parcel of land or being adjacent to that parcel of land, and the two parcels are separated only by a road, recreation path, railway line, street, or river. So a budding parcel to see. So this is this exempt exception to the rule is about the fact that all three of these types of programs have statutory caps and the utilities are required to have facilities that participate in tier two, which any of these would be. So there a need for there to be, in some cases, for there to be multiple types of system on the same or adjacent parcels. I do think this language is a little confusing. A lot of times. I agree. The Public Utility Commission, I think in their testimony, expressed that this was debated and negotiated between the stakeholders and that this is the language they agree on. So, if you have specific questions, especially subdivision two here on line eight, you may want to hear from them. But this is what was in their report. And so, there are those four little definitions at the end that I've already covered. Oh, I'm sorry. On page four, there's one more point of interconnection. I do think this definition is a little intuitive, but it's a point on the interconnected utilities distribution system where the facility proposes to interconnect.

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

[Speaker 0]: So, we have had an initial presentation from PUC. We're going to hear from our solar developers. And so my question is whether folks have questions about this legal language for our attorney. So to in other words, to understand this legal language. And then if there are other things we wanna hear, we can hear, you know, we can hear from other witnesses. I'm just trying to keep I'm I'm always very cautious of the fact that, you know, Ellen's our attorney who drafted this Mhmm. Drafted this language, so questions here would be about this language.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yep. Just reminding ourselves and myself. So, this was a highly contested area. And we asked the PUC to come up with, and they did this through a consensus process. What was that process? Do you

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So in act 38 last year, you direct them to have a stakeholder process with the relevant stakeholders and you ask them to consider some of the issues that had come up in testimony about the land use benefits and the cost benefits of being able to co locate. And so they came up with what is, they think, a bright line test based on the meetings they had with those stakeholders. So this

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: is really consensus. Great. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright then. I really am having a hard time to understand that last. Is there any possible way I'll down.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will try. So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Which paragraph?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page three, line eight.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. So

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the PUC is asked to determine if systems that are near each other are one system together or multiple systems. They have said in the initial language, if they're adjacent to each other and the same type of technology, they are one system, which would mean that they may bump up against the cap on any of these programs if there's multiple systems added. But there's an exception here for if is If the systems on the site do not have more than the statutory cap for the programs they're in, and they're not cited on the same parcel or contiguous parcels. There is an interest because there are different size caps for net metering and for standard offer and for tier two in general. They all have a different size cap. Net metering is 500 kilowatts. Standard offer is 2.2 megawatts. And tier two is five megawatts. So it is possible that there could be metering system, which would, let's say, is probably the easiest example. There could also potentially be a standard offer program facility. They would not be in the same billing type, and so they could be on the same parcel. They would not they would have different caps associated with that. Separate interconnections.

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

[Speaker 0]: it's saying that under those circumstances, if you've got a net metering project and a bigger standard offer project and they're on the same piece of land, but they're operating under these different programs, they don't get to count.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They count as separate projects.

[Speaker 0]: Right, they count as separate projects.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that that is the intent. If there's a cleaner way to say that, I am open to suggestion.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Suggest a cleaner way to say it. The

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: PUC, I think, believes this is the cleanest way to clearest way to say it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But I was asking if you could think of the next step way to say it. Do you have any suggestions on the language that you could think Not

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at this moment. If that is a request you're making,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I can't think about it.

[Speaker 0]: Let's hear from some folks first. I I just I'm not opposing it, and I I know this is confusing, but I'm just always wary of sometimes the time and effort that goes into coming up with consensus language. So I'm going to want to hear more about why the PUC and all of our stakeholders felt that this was the right way to say

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And that second condition on the statutory capacity cap applies to the cap for net metering and the cap for standard offer, but not the tier two.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Part of the reason is because the PUC doesn't enforce the cap on tier two in the same way they do for those other two programs. They because the tier two enforcement so called is because they have to qualify for a rec, which is verified by someone else. So at least in the report that they said that is why, because those that metering and standard offer, they control the caps, so they are keeping track of the caps for their enforcement purposes, not necessarily for record purposes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And standard offer and net metering have favorable rates. Correct. Tier two does not.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is that true?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it it's operating on a different system. So they're not getting a different rate, but tier two recs are more desirable, and we usually get a little bit higher fee for them. And so, again, it's sort of a different system.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Got it.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The incentive structure is different.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: with this here, you could have a 500 kw net meter. You could have a 2.2 k w standard offer. Point two megawatt. 2.2 megawatts. Excuse me. Can I so point five, two point two, and we could add up to five megawatts up here to all one stack behind the other with one point of common coupling or one interconnection point?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They need to have separate interconnections.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They all have to have and that was part of the argument of last year with the desire not to have to rebuild the wheel, reinvent the

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I think a slight distinction is that a a point of in a point of interconnection is some additional technology, but not, you know, like, roads or separate facility additional facilities. So, potentially, they could be put closer together without that additional other facilities. Just the interconnection point has to be separate.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Shared roads, shared poles, all that It doesn't automatically make them a single plant. It's just a shared interconnection point does.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All right. Ellen, thanks very

[Speaker 0]: much, and why don't

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we turn it over to here. This

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: laptop has about 10 of battery even if it's plugged in. Also, might be a little less hot here. No. It's hot. I just wanna say I really admire your stamina as

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

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: to push through this kind

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

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I've been here five minutes. Kinda like

[Candace Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah. I don't think our windows

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Alright. Well, take it off my jacket. No. Just a second.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Open. Yeah. Three years on. You know? Hi.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: The record, Peter Sterling, Renewable Energy Vermont. Thank you so much for having me here today.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna try to screen share. All right.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Well, first, I just want to say, I'm here to talk about single plan solar. I feel like in this time when there's so much going on in this country, it can be difficult to focus on this, for me at least. One of the but today is one of the days where it gets a little easier because what we're essentially talking about when we talk about something like this is fighting climate change, bringing more equity to the system, and things like that. So before I talk about single plan, I just wanna go into energy nerds, though, and I bring up the ISO to go resource mix. And right now, live, and it's been like this all day, if you are not using renewables, you are most likely using this ISO mix, which is right now 27% oil and 21% natural gas. So fully half of the electricity we're getting in in New England, you don't have a contract for renewables coming from oil or gas, none of those plants are located in Vermont. Every one of them is somewhere else in New England. Work work you're doing in this committee, I think we're trying to do collectively, is really important. I still think it's important even in this kind of crazy time. I just wanna say that is very powerful to me that now. Fully half of our electricity, if you're not under contract for renewable, you are getting it from somebody who's burning fossil fuels, which is none of which is being burned in Vermont.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if you're on a contract for renewable solar and solar is not producing today, then these resources have to support the energy we need. Well, with there's also wind in Vermont.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: We could be talking about there's more energy source. There's a lot of other things besides there's geothermal. There's a lot of ways to get power other than solar.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And batteries, as we just heard. Here

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: we go. The Public Utility Commission gave you a recommendation on how to redefine the definition of plant that would allow for greater colocation of renewables. R. E. F. Supports the language in the PUC's report, and, you know, here are some great reasons. You can read them for yourself. What I'd like to, comment on is is some of, what Ellen went through. By the he did a great job of trying to explain that. One of the pieces that was not covered just now was it's this this redefinition is more than about co locating a standard offer or net metering, which have those caps you heard about. What the PUC had been saying for the last ten years or so is if there was a a site that had a solar array that was either with net metering or standard offer on it, meaning a non, you know, a non market rate, like net metering is not a market rate. A solar developer wanna put another array on there and interconnect it and use all the roads and interconnection, they would be taking advantage of the of the facilities paid for by net metering, which were paid for by above market rates, which gives the developer an unfair advantage. So using the infrastructure put up by a net metering or standard offer array, which was subsidized, you see, essentially, by rate payers would be an unfair profit for developers. So they would not let a larger solar array of any size, you know, be colocated on a site that had a net metering or standard offer array. That's why I think this language is super, super important because industry is trending toward building not just smaller net metering arrays, but more toward a two to five megawatt arrays to meet you know, it's the cheapest way to make power at scale. So what this legislation is gonna do, and I'll show you the maps in a second, is allow for the kind of power that largely utilities are are trying to get PPAs for, the two to five megawatt projects, to be colocated in already developed sites that have a net metering array or have a standard op array. So it's and even that has nothing to do with the the caps of those individual programs. It has to be it all it has everything to do with using the infrastructure that's already been built by those other projects. So clear as mud. Now the PUC chose to do this in a way that doesn't make sense to a lot of us. It makes sense to them. They chose to define it in a negative. Instead of saying, this is what we allow. They say, we disallow everything, but we're gonna make these exceptions. And this is how you and the exceptions are the things that Rev and our allies are hoping will become. Do you understand? They just did everything in the neck, bring it in the negative with exceptions as opposed to positive. And that was their choice, and it works for them. So just as a reminder of an example of what we're talking about here is a 2.3 megawatt solar array on an old gravel pit in Hardwick. In the green there and in the red, that site would probably be off limits to development because of cost, because you couldn't access that common road and a lot of that other infrastructure in there. And with this single plant language being changed now, solar could be built affordably on that gravel pit, which is, I think, exactly where we ultimately wanna see solar or how renewables go on. Already developed sites like an old gravel pit that's already been permitted. It's out of everyone's way. Like, this is what and this is means this is why this is an important bill. It's gonna allow sites like this to get redeveloped, and I can go down the road. So here's an example of some of the cost savings for some of this. This was a blow up from my testimony last year. So that line in red is the is the road that was supposed that the under old single plant law would have had to have been built at about, well, many thousands of dollars because this single plant ruling will allow for sharing of infrastructure. Now this developer will only have to build that little green road at a share at savings over $50,000. Because now we can share infrastructure between the existing array and the proposed array instead of building this giant road to get to it. You only gotta build that little green one. And that's $50,000 off the price of that power. You know, that's a that's a pretty pretty significant savings. Also, for those of us who are concerned about conserving natural resources, you produce the the road surface area 16,000 square feet. Like, that's a lot less stuff that gets disturbed, a lot more a lot less runoff. Really good news. Similarly, not just for this array, but any array, when you have to build less power lines to extend them, because now you can share infrastructure, you're saving about $10,000 for every 100 feet of line you don't build. And in a big array, that that will get to $200,000 in savings really quickly. So I believe and from the solar developers I've talked to, that ultimately when you when this becomes law, it will lower the cost to bring on new renewables in Vermont. And that to me is really good news, you know, in that, you know, you'd easily be getting into a 6 figures for some of these bigger projects. So I can pause there for a second if you'd like.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. I guess I'm I'm wondering when you add on to an existing array Mhmm. That has an existing power purchase agreement, how does that affect the existing power purchase agreement?

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It has right. The only thing you're you're not adding you're not changing a power purchase agreement. Those are set. That's a contract. What we're talking about sharing is the infrastructure, like a road. Okay. So in this case

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So this would be a

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: separate it would be a separate agreement. Oh, totally separate PPA. Yes. I wasn't clear about that. Whenever we're talking about colocating solar, you're talking about a completely independent power purchase agreement with whoever is the off taker is. Okay? You're only talking about sharing infrastructure like wires, poles, roads, things like that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And remind me, the interconnection is shared or not shared? You can share the interconnection.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: But usually, they're scaled for the

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That doesn't sound right to me. That doesn't?

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Alright. Let me double check.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think you need a separate interconnect.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: You do need one because when you build an interconnection, you scale it for the site. But, you know, like it

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: because there's a there's a transformer.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Yeah. There's a transformer that's a certain size. You wouldn't buy an extra big

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Right.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Inverter transformer. However, I think, like, if there's, like, a concrete pad that's holding those things Yeah. That's technically part of the interconnection.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You could share a concrete pad. But But but the the electron, I mean, the kilowatts associated with the new expanded the additional generation will be contracted for. Right.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: 100% of the time. Sub section I says the facilities have separate points of interconnection. It is right. Okay. It is a rule for this part.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Great. I mean, what I mostly what I hear about from the developers as far as savings go are mostly from roads, wires, poles, things like that. And those are big bucks that are, you know, just redundant. You know, it doesn't matter if you're sharing a road between two different arrays. And so, again, real money being saved by future solar in Vermont if this were to become law, and I think that's just good for everyone. Also, next slide. Oh, never mind. One of the things we'll also do is it removes a lot of the legal uncertainty about where to locate things, which ultimately speeds things up and makes things cheaper. So there's lot of good reasons to do it. I don't need to belabor it. I'm happy to answer any more questions about why we support this. PUC did a great job getting, taking comments. Their proposal evolved quite a bit from what was first proposed, so they listened to people. I think this is just a great example of our regulators working with different stakeholders to come up with something that will ultimately save Vermonters money and speed things up and do good for climate. So it sounds like it's checking a lot of good boxes there.

[Speaker 0]: And remind us of the process there was a we directed the PC to come back with specific legislative language, and there was a workshop?

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Yep. There was a stakeholder group that had to be convened, they put out their information. There was a workshop, and there were multiple edits along the way. So we'd see a draft, and then they'd go back to work, and we'd comment. We'd say so, you know, there were two or three of those, and PC just did a great job with that.

[Speaker 0]: So it's a public I'm just thinking through this workshop idea. So it's a public process. Specific stakeholders that have I mean, I know it's not illegalistic, that have standing or that have relevant expertise are invited. And you talk it all out and hash it all through, but then drafts are issued and anybody has the ability to read the drafts, to submit comment. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Less formal than a proceeding. Right. Where they're doing their You

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: know? Record. And the open workshops are open to the public as well. Like, the public can listen. They're not in private.

[Speaker 0]: Is it online, or is it in a home?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They're all virtual.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, at

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: least for this one, they were all virtual.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So we identified an area where there was conflict and a desire for folks to solve problem. We directed the PUC to undergo this process. It took some number of months, but not some number of years. Everybody got in the room, hashed it all out. Public could see. Public could watch. Public could submit comments. Hey, presto. We have a consensus report delivered to us on time.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Just to back up on the Presto part. No. Really, I don't think you should underplay the role that you know, this committee initiated this. Your committee gave very clear direction the public utility commission about the outcomes you wanted. Mhmm. You were in your in in s 50, you gave very clear outcomes you wanted to see. We're gonna we're gonna have something that concerns open spaces that makes it easier to colocate. You gave them very three outcomes you wanted, and they had to they are PC is a creation of a legislature. They listened to what you wanted because you were very clear in what you expected from them. I believe that was the probably the most important part of this process.

[Speaker 0]: Me too. I was just gonna say, in S 50, we probably also said who needs to be invited to the workshop, who are on the stake. We did identify them.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And that kind of clarity, I think, really helped set the goals for what they were supposed to do. I have one more slide I just wanna jump on to. Yeah. You don't have to read any of this, but when when the PUC was here to deliver this report, they also talked about something they chose to add in there, which was a recommendation for changing how decommissioning of solar projects will happen. So that was not part of s 50. But as you can see in the last sentence there, the commission joined these topics into a single investigation because the interested parties for the deposition of plan overlap significantly with the interested parties for the decommissioning process. Those are their words. So they added on to the what you asked in s 50 to do this. We Rev did not support the language they presented to you. They knew that. However, since their testimony, we have been working more vigorously with PUC staff, and we're we are hopeful that we will be able to come back to you with language that Rev and the PUC can agree to that on on making the decommissioning process more efficient for the PUC and more streamlined and things like that. So since this has been presented to you, I just wanna let you know we're working very closely and, aggressively with the PUC to try to find something that will work for both of us, which I feel very optimistic can be done. So I expect we'll be coming back to you on this decommissioning piece toward later in the sessions or PUC will. So it's good news.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great. So that would not be an amendment to this bill. That would be great.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Yeah. I don't know when we'll figure out. I I don't think it'll be in the next few weeks. Yeah. Like, I think this if I yeah. We've been quite along before we get back, but we are I feel confident we can work out something.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great. Questions for Peter?

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Great. Great. Well, thank you so much.

[Speaker 0]: Couple questions for the committee about this bill. PUC came in and presented their kind of report and we talked to them about that. Then we drafted the bill based completely on the report. So, were no changes made. We just wrote that up and now we've heard from one of our key stakeholders. I am feeling like we can have the PUC come back in to reflect on this language And then I think we can bring it to a vote. I'm glad to hear what Peter said about the decommissioning. I was not fully on board with diving into the decommissioning topic in this bill. It sounds like if the PUC and R. E. V. Are working together to come up with consensus language, that makes me feel better and that can always meet up with the bill on the Senate side. So that's that's what I'm seeing as the path. Any thoughts?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Seems that's where I'm at.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't think I need any

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: more testimony. I think we asked for consensus to be attempted, and it looks like it was achieved. So I'm just getting that signed up. PUC is happy with how the language is in there.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Alex, could you reach out to Greg Favor? I was in the middle of a sentence. Tell them that we would like to have the PUC come in for, you know, thirty, forty five minutes, thirty minutes probably to, give a specific feedback on h seven ten. And rep Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I would, as I stated before, I'd like to get more cleaner language on that one section.

[Speaker 0]: I'm just thinking it's probably not Greg Favor, but it was somebody else that came in last time from the PUC. Yeah. Dark hair. Yeah. Jake. Sarah. It was Jake and yeah. Maybe Not Sarah. Invite the folks who came from the PUC before. And, rep Southworth, why don't you ask them if they feel that they could why don't you ask them how they feel about cleaner language? Because I wanna hear about how that intersects with

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: No. I I I would like to have cleaner language, not how they feel about it. How it just it's very hard for anyone to understand, and cleaner language would clean that up.

[Speaker 0]: So we will ask Ellen to present at something that's just a draft for us to look at that the PUC can

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: also bounce off of. Any

[Speaker 0]: changes to this, we're going to have to get feedback from folks, which is fine. So, why don't you reach out to Ellen and have her draft something and bring it to us.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: All right. I think that is, are we done for the today?