Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right. Welcome back everybody to House Energy Thank you. We are back having done a committee markup and discussion of committee bill 260,726 an act related to based fiber based network transitions. And we've made a few final changes and we are ready to vote on draft 1.4 dated today at 09:38AM, and that is on our screen and will be posted momentarily to our website. So, I'm representing Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell, Saint Johnsbury.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille, Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Michael Southworth, Caledonia, Christopher Howland, four. Dara Torre, Washington, two. Laura Sibilia, one, two.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Great. In the room. Dana

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Lee Perry, Pentacrossy Grove. Andrew Brewer with DRM.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Bennington with Denver Machinery. Great.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: TJ Ford, Public Service Department.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Excellent. For the record. And Maria Royal with Webb City Council. So, all the highlighting is gone, all the changes that you approved earlier are incorporated, and then the two revisions are on page four. I'll just make sure that they are what you hoped they would be. So in finding number four, disclosures about whether the carrier is obligated to provide as opposed to disclosures about the carrier's obligations. And then in number five, information on the need for and availability of backup power options and battery cycles to maintain service continuity. So striking the language to ensure. So those are the only two changes made in draft 1.1. Great. The folks have any further questions? And if not, definitely open to a motion to vote on Doctor two six zero seven two six for 01/2026 at 09:38AM.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I move that the aforementioned bills get moved forward for a major generation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And our clerk reminds us that we do not need a second. Right? Alright. Will the clerk please call the roll? Hi.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Representative Bailey?

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Campbell? Yes. Representative Powell?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Representative Morrow?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yes. Representative

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Essex. Yes. Representative Southworth?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Representative Torre? Yes. And chair James? Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Perfect. That's 801. The holy grail. And the report is? Representative Sibilia. And we will put this on notice, and it will move in the floor. So thanks, everybody.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That was

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: a good one.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're welcome. Alrighty. Appreciate everybody's input on that. Love the result. Thanks, Maria. You're welcome. Alrighty. I think we can just shift gears. And almost even on time. We are going to veer onto a different road and take some additional testimony about h seven sixteen an act related relating to the net metering formula. So we have here Peter Sterling from Renewable Energy Vermont. Peter, you wanna?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We're back to the my worst nightmare, which is trying to get a computer to work in public. Pressure. So I'm gonna go grab my Yeah. If I don't wanna fall apart here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, actually, that'll give me a chance get the gloves here.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Here we go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And this is, just so folks know, this, this is h seven sixteen as introduced. So if everybody has that or wants it, that's it's we haven't made any, you know, revisions or anything. Right? Chris, it's just as okay. Does everybody know that Ryan Cochran Siegel picked silver? We do. Yeah. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We'll hear it

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: board. Are you sure?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Jared, it's pensive. Judd's here.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: He is. I was skipping into the building this morning. Literally.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's a big deal.

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

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Not little Ski Mountain?

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's kind thing that isn't even, like, barely a real run or thing to be Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: A a roto. Right? Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They have it on the ground too. Just a second here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Brammer, can you remind me? We've got a bill intro walk through and that's It. It. So here we go.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Here we go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. I didn't think I was missing anything.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And next up is gonna be we're gonna hear from the department right after Peter. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Am I showing up as someone wanting to go in? Yes. Well, let's not waste any of the science. This works the way is. Hi.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: For the record, I'm Peter Sterling, executive director of Renewal by Energy. Yvonne, thank you so much for taking testimony here today.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'm here to talk about

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: H seven sixteen. And

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I know Chow Chow Chow.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: That's weird. And then I'm gonna share my testing on here. This this slide this first slide here will show you this is these are where the various net metering businesses are in Vermont.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: See there. Is that a few of them? So

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: the reason we are here we are here, I think, in part is because the Trump administration congress have ended federal support for purchasing residential solar, our net metering program. The federal reconciliation bill passed last summer terminated the 30% credit for residential solar previously scheduled to run through twenty third thirty two. Simultaneously, the EPA withdrew $62,000,000 in solar for all funding Vermont was gonna get to help look Vermonters go solar. And it seems like there this is the time for a Vermont response to ensure that we can go solar where we live and where we work.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Peter, just to slow you down. Always. Mister Fast. Right? Just stop you right there, mister Fast Talker.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: First time I've heard that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So because we have a little we have a little bit of time.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No need to rush. So I just I just wanna make sure. So we heard testimony about this at our big October Right. Hearing. So the tax credit that would help individual Vermonters put solar on their home had been scheduled to run through twenty twenty thirty two, and that ended as that is ending no. It ended.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It ended on December 31.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That ended. Okay. Alright. And then the Solar Pearl funding, is that definitely gone?

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Well, it's in the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: court system.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's in the It's court system.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Being litigated. But

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: it's not gonna be resolved anytime soon. Okay. Great. I do wanna be clear about the the tax credit. The tax credit ended for homeowners who wanna own the solar on their roof. You there are still there is still a tax credit available if you wanna lease it. We don't really do have very many any, I think, that lease solar in Braun anymore. Sunrun used to, but they're not doing it. But this is about people who wanna own their own solar. That's what we're talking about.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So when we met in October, we had 5,100,000.0 from one agency and 5,000,000 from the other. I don't know if the federal was 5.1, and there was a state 5,000,000 when they came in.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Five. What are you talking about? There was

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the Sanders guy from Sanders' office came in with Solar for All.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Oh, Solar for All. And there was a TJ knows what you're talking about. Sorry. I missed the question, but I

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: think I know what the answer is probably.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: There two there were two sources for a total of 10,100,000.0. One, I remembered at 5,100,000.0, and one was 5,000,000.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Oh, I maybe I do not know the answer to that. Maybe I Solar for All for that was going to be dedicated to residential low income customers was about a third of the total. So roughly $20,000,000 was going to be dedicated, but that's that's what, as mister Sterling said, is in the courts. And for the record, from the public service department.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hey. Representative, did you have

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Just clarifying on the leasing. Do you have any members that do leasing that you're aware of? Not currently. Okay.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It's a very difficult thing to get into from a capital Yep. Point of view just because you don't you don't get your money right away. Yeah. It hard as a cash flow for a business to do, so that's why no one really does it. They might.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I was just looking for a definitive now if you if we had it up. So No. Was the right answer.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: So why do any of this? Why are we even talking about going solar? Like, what's the point? This is just a couple snapshots from the ISO mix during this recent cold snap that seems to never end. I can't remember the beginning of anymore. But, you know, when it gets really cold or really hot, you know, we really do turn to other sources of of of fuel for our electricity, mainly oil and natural gas, right, When we're not producing enough renewables in this region, in this state, we rely on the ISO base to fill fill our gaps. And when you look at these, these are just four snapshots. There's a lot of them that these numbers go up and down all the time. I could pull it out right now and tell you what we're doing live, but when it's really cold or really hot, you know, you could see we're pushing over 50% oil and gas, and that is, you know, an important reason even when you talk about why go solar or why invest in renewables and stuff like if we care about climate change, decreasing our use of this is important. Okay. So this is meant just to be an overview of how net metering rates are set. There are a lot more people who know a lot more about it. Overview is so in 2017, the legislature gave the authority to the PUC to set the compensating rate for net metering. This biennial update is done every two years. The next biennial update will begin in March next month, and the PUC will announce the new rates after taking input and such from in sometime in May or June. The new rates go into effect in the summer this summer, sometime through the 2028. So sometime in May or June, the PC will announce the rates, how much the monitors essentially receive for for net metering

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: All of that.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: That will cover the next two years. Yeah. Yep. Sorry. Phil, sorry. You're

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: on the last slide Oh, yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: By real fast. Sure.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I'm wondering about the price volatility of oil and gas during this close now. So do you know anything about that? I haven't seen the numbers, but what what we do have a law in New England that says when there's a shortage of natural gas, if there's a shortage of natural gas, the natural gas must be used for heating before electricity. So a lot of our natural gas that historically would be used to make electricity get shoved into for heating, and then oil will backfill. Oil generation generally backfills that natural gas, and so, generally, when there's a shortage, prices go up. Vermont is generally more insulated from those price shops because we have many long term contracts for power than other newly built states. We are not the way our electric market is set up, we don't really play as much. We are less sensitive. Principally for hydrogen.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But but Principally for hydrogen. So so so we don't so in other words, we don't really know what what the price volatility during cold snaps for fossil fuels is.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I would have to look it up. Yeah. It didn't happen, but it didn't go down.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Probably not. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: That that was just interesting. Have other I have charts from previous cold snaps where it shows the spike at the time when the weather I can get you that chart, and it it goes right up. I have seen the Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. And I so I just don't know what the impact is on on on on Yeah. Utilities rates. We have But for utility cost, I know it

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: it takes a while for

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: it to impact. I'll bet you. I need TJ Core to talk a lot about that. He might know. He might got a mess. If you if you

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: see him, ask him to come. TJ.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rep. Sibilia? Yeah. I was gonna note. I mean, the department collects this information monthly, I believe. Right? They collect it regularly. So I had a do you do you wanna do you

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: say anything more about that at this moment?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. I mean, TJ's up next. So My question and I don't wanna take us too far afield, but going back to solar for all, which is paused. Do we have any kind of quantification? And this may also be TJ talking about what that would have resulted in in terms of installed solar power in the state? How much how how DJ is the expert on that.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I think he's talking probably around for the residential side, it was probably around a thousand homeowners who were bought in the ballpark of of accessing a raise up to five k w. And there was many more megawatts of the supplemental affordable housing and then through the acre, but he's the one that did it all.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So I so I don't know that this is entirely relevant right in this moment, but I'm interested in that, just the impact on our overall potential to reduce emissions and need to Yeah. Well, that was

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: all in our solar for all application to the beds, so we have that information. Okay, net metering rates are set by recalculating the statewide blended rate and then deducting any negative rate adjusters that the PUC decides are necessary. The blended rate is a formula calculated by the department following a methodology in rule 5.1.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is it kinda like an average or

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: or is it more technical? It's a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: little more technical. Alright. Never mind.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Moving It's a formula. Okay. And it basically goes up every year based on factors. Right? And then the PUC, like I said, uses adjusters to then subtract from that blended rate, and the two adjusters that are used are based on the size or site of an array and whether a customer keeps or sells their RECs to a utility. So these are neg these are so let's say that a blended rate comes out at 18¢, and you wanna keep your rec, that's a minus 3¢ off your blended rate. And then if it's a certain size, it might be another two, you might end up getting 12¢ or something like that. So the adjusters are subtracted from that blended rate, and that's how much a consumer will be paid.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the power they generate on their rooftop solar.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And so the chart here, I just show the since 99% of people sell their RECs essentially to their utility, that's not an adjuster that comes into play all that often for residential net metering. I just used on this chart the size adjuster. The next slide will have more detail, but you can see the statewide blended rate has generally gone up per that formula since 2021. And you can also see as the blended rate has gone up, the adjuster has also the negative adjuster has increased. So that last column, despite the blended rate going up, Vermonters are receiving less money for the the net metering credits they generate. Clear as mine?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That actually is clear.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Clear as mine. Wow. Sorry. Had to look up. Right.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Well, don't know. Page Street here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Repowment? The negative

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: adjuster includes everything the net meter person generates and uses as being generated.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. That's

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: right. The negative adjuster applies to both power that's exported and power that's used behind the meter.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And so this negative 4¢ adjuster is anticipated to go to negative six Well

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: summary, Kurt. That that is a decision that the Public Utility Commission will make. I would say that based on history, there is the PUC has increased the negative adjuster, and I think adding two cents given the history on this chart would not seem unreasonable. It could they could add a penny. They could do anything. They could do nothing. They could make it equal, but history has shown us that in general, the PUC has increased negative adjusters each biennial update.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I don't know who it at first, so we ought to

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And and for ref I'll I'll well, for reference, GMP's so the statewide blended rate is is a a retail an atmosphere a blended retail rate. Right. And GMP's rate compared to this is a little bit higher. Yeah. And watching electric, for example, is is a lot higher. So the impact on customers in those territories It's it's In terms of the the gap between what they're paying for retail and and what they're receiving. That's right. It's much There's

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: a difference in different utilities. I mean, the I forget the exact rule. Of course, TJ will know it. There's you have an option whether to use the statewide blender reader or

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: your own depending on what you're feeling.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: You have enough of the utilities. Yeah. I'm not gonna I hope I'm not gonna answer that question. There is there is some flexibility about whether you guys have statewide blender rate or you're are the one that's kind of. I don't have that on

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: top of my tip of my tongue.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a classic

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I have to that question because it looks like he knows the answer and

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: wants to say. So, yeah, that

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Who has the who has the option? Is it the utility or the customer?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The the utility chooses the rate, but they and we'll say that the the blended rate applies to exported generation. Whereas there anything that's netted out within a month, you can use to get a retail rate that actually does not this chart does not apply to it. It it that continues to increase with rates. Yeah. So that this isn't the entire picture.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Right. Yes. Right. Okay. I I understand. Thanks. Peter? I'm answering questions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I I just you looked like you. Okay. So the this classic one zero one CAS question. So I've got my solar, and it's generating power, and we talk about behind the meter and export it to the grid. Just a super simple question I have is is is that power is my house actually using that power and then exporting the extra to the grid, or is it an accounting thing where we're keeping track of how much I'm exporting, keeping track of how much power I'm using, and it's just math.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It's just the math.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're Okay. That's what I

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: using the the way electricity generally works is Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just flows out.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Flows out, and

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the person

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: track of how much I'm flowing out.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And then

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then we keep track of how much I'm using every month. And exported is just it's a math thing.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Right. Okay. And you

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: have a figure out of this.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yep. Right. So but the people that the people that had their application date prior get the latest blended rate. Their blended rate goes up every year, but the adjuster only affects the applicant in the year that he made his application. So he carries he he stays in a per se graduating class or application class. His adjuster his adjuster goes up as the retail rates.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And that's and that's why we said compensation rate in year one. Thank you. Because Alright. Fortune's okay. Exactly. Right?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yes. And and just for edification, the current rebound power residential rate's 21.47, something four seven five, but 18.3. It probably got nineteen, nineteen point something in June '24,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: as I recall. Perhaps Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I'm trying to make sure I understand in this place as well. So the net effect

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: of what

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we do to existing customers. So is this is this our net meters? So what is the net effect?

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: So represent Howland's right. So what what happens when the blended rate goes up? It goes up for everyone. Mhmm. So for Your adjusters stay the same for ten years, but your blended rate goes up for everyone. So

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: so So your adjuster, you get locked into for ten years when you first come online Right.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: But your blended rate Goes up. But when you're sitting down like, here's the thing. When you're sitting down with someone who wants you wanna go solar and you invite Cadillac Solar to come in your house and talk, they they show they they factor in this up. They use most people have factored in historically, like, a 3% inflation increase. So they show you this is what your payments mean, this is how we develop the cost versus the payback. They factored in that blended rate, a guess at the blended rate. So it's not like people get found money. It's not like they're getting extra money. They get what they were projecting now if inflation were to, like, go up 10%, but you factored in 3% and you took out that loan, then obviously you had a problem. But, historically, electric rates have stayed you know, see in the next slide, stayed on a pretty steady increase near inflation. So this is not, like, found money. It's part of what you signed up for when you took out a loan or paid up to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're I just wanna make sure I understand something you just said, which I actually hadn't known. So the statewide blended rate goes up for everybody.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But your as a net metering customer or exporter, your compensation rate is set in year one, and it's locked for ten years, and then it expires? I thought you said

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Your adjusters are set for ten years. And Rates fluctuate. The rate fluctuates, but your adjusters are set for ten years. Afterwards, the adjusters then fluctuate yearly. And so the people that applied

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: 2015 and before had a positive Yeah. 5¢ to zero, that 5¢ to zero goes away in ten years Yeah. As does the negative four go away in ten years. No.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: The negative ones always stay, actually. The negatives do not. Negatives stay. The positive adjusters go away. If you have a positive adjuster, those go away after ten years. But the negative adjusters stay for the life of the system.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That's right. Okay. That's important. Yeah. And this

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: is all something that the consumer is that the developer talked to the consumer about in the beginning. So none of this is relevant to what happens with net metering away because they they paid their price for their array. They broke their check or took out their loan, and it's, in theory, balancing or doing whatever with their electric bill, and then they just keep on moving. So it doesn't impact a consumer's decision, really. Like, they made this decision upfront to go net meter to net meter based on how much it was gonna cost based on these assumptions about what the adjusters are, what the blend rate's gonna be. And so, you know, this is all, like, really behind the curtain stuff that doesn't once the consumer, most of the time, sees the bottom line, oh, it's gonna cost me $27,000 to put the spray on my roof, and this is the monthly cost. This is my bill. I'm gonna electrify. Oh, that makes sense. Then they do it or they don't. Right? So all of this

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: is just Oh, but it it Impacts their decision. Yeah. 100%. Math. Yeah. 100%. Right.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: But it's all but once they decide to do it or not do it, then nothing changes on them. Right.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's what I'm saying.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Right. K. So just just another visual way of looking at this. So this just shows you the the adjusters. The blue is the adjusters for arrays that were up to a 150 kw, and the yellow are are below the smaller ones under a 100 and you can just see that they decreased over time. I'm just gonna I didn't get onto this chart, the twenty twenty five number, which I just hopefully, it texted to me. It's about 25 mega alright. So see these dots on the right there, the the the decrease? So last year in 2025, we went through the EPC, and we thought about 25 megawatts of solar were put up, so that would be closer to the 2023 number. You can see in general, you know, it's we're in the we're we're putting up less net meter solar than we had did in years past. I think a large part of that, honestly, is with the res reform and with POC decisions on the last few years, the big net metering arrays, the one fifties, the two fifties, the five hundreds in the fields of virtual new rings, those are those stopped happening around, like, 2021, 20 '2 in mass. So I think that is also contributing to to this what what's happening here in this chart. Okay? So we can just see net metering. As we increase the negative adjusters, there is generally a decrease in how many people are net metering. Is kind of an important point. Estimates, we're gonna hear a lot about net metering cost shifts, and that's been talked about a lot in in committees. The cost shift includes a a dollar value on the lost sales to utility. Meaning, when we hear the cost shift number from that meeting, it includes a figure that of lost sales to utility. Meaning, I've generated 8 k w at my house this month. That's 8 k w. I'm not buying from my utility. That's there's a dollar figure on that that utilities count as a loss. Right? However, that is, I think, not a great way to look at the benefits of that metering because many programs we initiate require a decrease in electric consumption, like switching to you know, getting rid of electric baseboard or putting in, you know, a a more efficient light bulb. You can see them all here. Like, we don't we don't talk when we talk about energy efficiency or other initiatives, we don't say that's a caution to the utility when someone gets a brand new fridge that's more efficient. We never hear that that's a caution, but it is. It's the same kind of caution. Right? It's a loss sale to utility because I just went from a refrigerator that used, you know, 25 kilowatts of load to one that uses 10. That's a loss sale to utility. And net metering is the only policy where we actually discuss reduced consumption or reduced purchases as as a negative. Just wanna throw it out there. I think that's an important point when we talk when we hear about the cost shift. Couple other parts about the cost shift is where you know, that is pretty much the main thing I think we hear about as why we should not be leaning more on net metering. Because newer net metering systems, you know, pay that minus 4¢ for every kilowatt of electricity they generate, and the fee for new systems have been increasing over time. The cost shift caused by newer net metering is much more modest than older net metering. REV estimates that the amount of net metering installations in 2025 looked similar to installations in 2023. The typical impact to availability about 30¢ a month. I mean, that's what we think you're talking about. You know, this is just a small fraction of the billion dollars spent by utilities each year on electric. And, you know, the as representative Howland mentioned, the older systems were paying a much higher rate out, and as they come offline because those positive adjusters go away, the the cost shift you know, the impact of net metering will will will, you know, be decreasing, we think. Yep.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Isn't the other part of the of the cost shift argument that utilities are having to, in effect, buy power at a higher at a rate instead of instead of paying retail or wholesale bill, you're paying a higher fraction of That's right.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Of of retail. It's the ex right. It's the it's the extra cost of of that export of that solar that's exported. Yep.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Are you are you have you tried to quantify that here also?

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: No. But I can I have another slide that talks a little bit about that? K. But, no, I didn't go into the exported power number. Yeah. Okay. So here's that slide. Okay. So costs are just one side of net metering. This is the best part I've ever done right there. I feel so, you know, if you go to Shaw's and you just look at the cost side of what you paid for, you know, that's one side of it, but you also got a lot of food out of it. Right? So we hear about the cost ship a lot, but here's some of the benefits of net metering. And, Brett Campbell, this this chart below is from something a consulting firm hired by the New Hampshire Department of Public Service that did a value stack of all the benefits of net metering. And from I just wanna be clear upfront. Vermont's value stack on net metering would not look like this. We have a much different solar penetration, much different energy portfolio. But they add all those little colors on the right there. Those are the benefits of of behind the meter generation. And when you add on all of those up, Dungsky, this firm, found that that in many cases, the value of net meter generation behind meter generation in New Hampshire, again, just in New Hampshire, was around 17¢ a kilowatt hour. So that is you know, that's a lot of value to utilities and all of the savings on these. Now ours we we don't have a value stack like that for our for net metering, but it certainly would be, you know, adding it would certainly decrease the amount of, expense associated with the purchasing of that power you mentioned. Right? Because we have the social cost of carbon

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: in there. Oh, yeah. No. No. I'm not

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: talking about the benefit side. I I I'm fully with the argument that we gotta we have to quantify Yeah.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And and and monetize the bank side. And what I'm saying is, right now, I think, you know, generally, the number that Department of Public Service uses is 6 or 7¢ of is is the avoided cost of solar media. If you didn't just went on to the grid to try to buy solar in most times at 6 or 7¢ a kilowatt hour. That's just a pure, you know, dollar amount. That does not include right now, it would be a pretty big delta between, let's say, the 14¢ you get per net metering and 6 or 7¢ and what it costs. That delta is the cost shift, that 8¢ for that power you mentioned. Right? But when you start adding in some of these savings, that Yeah. Delta would shrink. And that's why we have not been able to quantify that because we can't do all of these numbers at rev. Like, we don't have that capacity. Yeah. And that's why we've not been able to really quantify that. But again, some of the benefits of of net metering, increased grid resiliency as people, you know, go solar at home and have higher generation, decreased transmission costs. There's many good jobs around the state. Solar definitely incentivizes energy storage at home, reduce pressure on open spaces by having solar in the built environment. The social cost of carbon, of course, comes into play, fewer transmission poles and wires because we're building on sites, and less distribution land losses from, you know, behind the meter generation. And then, you know, last my last slide, really, we hear a lot about the cost of solar of of of electric rates and such, but you can see that, really, over time, Vermont's electric rates have really tracked generally with inflation. And, you know, we have a look in this chart on the left, you know, we have the lowest rates in New England, you know, for a few years running now, and you can see this chart on the right also has the resident the overall residential electricity prices, you know, other than New York, ours are the lowest in in the region. And right there, again, tracking with inflation. You know, no one knows what inflation's gonna do the next five years, but, you know, history is any guide. Rates will stay with inflation. Mean, we're not paying more. Then there is this chart, this statement at the bottom. Between third quarter twenty fifteen and third quarter twenty twenty five, the average residential electricity price increased by about 33.39. The consumer price index for the Northeast rose by 33.37% over that same time period. Again, just reinforcing that for Vermont general, electric rates rise with inflation. They're not some it's not like health care or some other sector where you see just such a much more radical increase than in place than you justify by inflation. So that's really my whole thing. That's my whole spiel there. I think '16 would be an incredible start to helping more Vermonters go solar at home, and I hope we can have a vibrant discussion about doing something.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: You know, there's two elements of the bill. One is the negative rate adjustment, but the other element is behind the meter. Yeah. So do you have any any comments on Sure.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: The benefits of that? Sure. Thanks. In general, most times people do policy, I think it's agreed that you wanna tax a bad thing and incentivize a good thing. That's generally how we how to do things. And, you know, behind the you know, energy storage is generally considered a very good thing for resiliency, for hazard reasons, all that. When a Vermonter has a battery at home and they have solar on their roof and that power goes into that battery, they pay for that negative adjuster, that 4¢ a kilowatt hour for the power they store in their battery or they use behind the meter that never touches the grids. That's there's you know, the PUC has a rationale for that, and but that's basically taxing something that is generally considered a good thing, energy storage or behind the meter on-site generation. Getting rid of that minus 4¢ on behind the meter generation and would really incentivize more people to buy batteries. It makes it more affordable to buy more batteries. That's what we should be pushing people to do is using generating power on-site where they need it, storing it on-site. And so that 4¢ is a you know, is definitely a tax on a good thing, and there's a lot of good reasons to consider getting rid of that 4¢ on the behind the meter generation. I mean, a lot of good reasons.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just to go back to my earlier question then, just to make sure I'm understanding this, I understand stored on-site got on a battery. Used on-site, you mean in a mathy way?

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, it

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Not Right. As it's as it's just get back to my thing. Used on-site means

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Consumed or stored. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, not consumed. Yeah. Right. Accounted for.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Accounted for. Right. Well, you're not right. Right.

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

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: You're not sending it to the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well If

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: if my solar panels are if it's sunny and my solar panels are going and my EV is plugged in, that power is going right from my solar panel into my EV. So I'm consuming it in that moment. It doesn't have time to reach the grid. So I'm consuming it. And then the mathy part means, like, this meter I've got is calculating how much I'm sending versus how much I stay put.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Perhaps, Sibilia.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So prior to 2017, the legislature used to set the rates. What was that like?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are we waiting for TJ?

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: So I was in the health care committee with you talking about doctor Dara Torre. I don't know. I fortunately got out of all that. Yeah. It was very complicated, and I think the legislature probably made the right decision in sending it to people who had expertise to figure out how to do it. But it was very much a difficult choice, and there was a lot of legislative debate in legislative here that it made it wise and said, let's let people who have a lot of expertise in the electric sector do it. But sure it was a lot of conversations.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, always going back to your question about how the power gets used. So those electrons are going from my panels to my panel box, my my electric box Yeah. You know, service panel Yeah. Before it goes to the grid. So if there's any load happening in my service panel, those electrons are serving that load. That's right. And then the excess is is is going back to the grid. That's right. Okay. That's what I tried

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: to say. Yeah. You said it way better. Okay. K. Thank you.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's what I thought was happening, but then the conversation if

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I can't know exactly what happened.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So you really have two things here. You have the excess generation is going back into the grids while the sun is shining. That evening, those electrons are being drawn on from The grid. The grid Yep. For that evening. But the net is the end of the month. The sum of all the pluses and minuses for the month. Yeah. And at the end of the month, your plus then gets compensated at the melted rate in

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the clinic. Oh, I yeah. I I I I got that. Well, it's

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: not there's a nappy thing. Exactly.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It's a nappy thing.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. And and and so I'm I'm GNP, and the the big numbers that they put at the top of the bill that say this is what you generated this year this month and this is what you use this month are not actually what you generated or what you used. Because if you look down the bill and look at what you're being charged for the the engine efficiency charge, that is is is based on your actual usage for the month. Which is which which is a a different number, a different number of kilowatt hours than the number they put in big numbers big.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: If if you had a contract that started prior to think the year was 2017. I don't think you're assessed with the energy efficiency chart. The legislature put the energy They they changed that. They changed that. The energy efficiency charge is on all the electricity you you use. It's a nonfident consequence.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Oh, okay. It may it may it may change it may change after having your Well, we're just Yeah. And it's

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: We're getting way way more Yeah. Yeah. Like, I've had such

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Committed hazard.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But you do have you are you are correct that you have what you generated on your bill and then what you the net you use from the grid. And I don't know where on that bill what you do in house in some

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I've I've gone through this at least a couple of times with the RFP product. And I figured it out at the time, I refused to. So, anyway, we we we we.

[Peter Sterling (Executive Director, Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Thank you for hearing about this, and I hope you all have great day.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks a lot, Peter. And you've got you've turned in your testimony. Yeah. Alright. Next up is director.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I hesitated for a second. I was a general post me up. I got up here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I was trying not to call you TJ. I was looking for your official I don't

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: respond to

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: both. Kyle. Anymore. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, alrighty. Great. So, our conversation of h seven sixteen and net metering for the record.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: TJ Core, director of regulated utility planning with the public service department. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Your written testimony?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I have notes here, which I could Transform and Transform and some written testimony. That'd be great. And then I I pulled up some slides that I'll refer to because I I do wanna respond to one thing that mister Sterling said. But, really, I'll start with one thing that I agree with that mister Sterling said is that he said, in response to representative Sibilia, your question, that the legislature made the right choice to send, the metering rates to the people with the expertise to set the rates. And I I agree with that. So thank you for the opportunity to testify on h seven sixteen, and I'll some of the concerns that the department has with h seven sixteen. One, we believe it would lock in upward rate rate pressure. Two, it will not support any progress towards greenhouse gas reductions, period. And three, it creates complexity and confusion around billing, which I I'm actually not sure will be even feasible for all utilities. So I thought I'd talk about that a little bit. But first, I appreciate that you all went into the weeds. I thought that was reserved for me. But I wanna take a step back and talk about the net metering rates that are set by the commission. They do that when legislature sent it to the commission. It was so that the rates would be set in a fact based transparent process that's really intended to balance a number of objectives that the legislature laid out. Those include advancing our renewable targets, consistency with the energy plan, which as a reminder had, has a goal of 90% clean energy across all sectors by 2050, limits cost shift between customers, accounts for all of the costs and the benefits of net metering. It balances the pace of deployment with rate impact, accounts for the cost of the technology. So, what we're seeing in actual cost and accounts for the ownership of the renewable energy credits. And so really, setting the the guidelines for the outcomes that the legislature wants to see and allowing the commission to develop the regulatory structure to most meet those guidelines. It goes back to what I was agreeing with Peter about or mister Sterling about. Right? That that is the right place to do that. That that in our opinion, the role for legislature set the guidelines, role for the PUC to actually implement them in in a fact based transparent record. You know, really, if there is a specific pace of net metering that the legislature would like, then the legislature should say, we want this much net metering, and then the PUC would design the rates to to keep that. The similar to how the legislature has said, we want this much in state solar from tier two of the renewable energy standard, or we want this much new renewables. Right? And then the the utilities respond with those requirements to actually to meet the need or meet the requirements as cost effectively as possible. So, really, the the venue for setting the rates should be the PUC, and the venue for setting the guidance on the principles that you want the PUC to consider is the legislature. That that is that that that's how that's how we think about that. Just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to comment on that, you know, Brett Morrow might wanna chime in. In some ways, I see this bill as that exact response. It's a legislative response to seeing net metering become consistently less and less financially feasible to many Vermonters and discouraging the deployment of solar in places where it's the least controversial, the easiest to put up, the easiest to deploy. I mean, we, you know, we see the conversations happening all around the state about the places where we're trying to put in larger arrays and putting it on, you know, in somebody's yard or on somebody's rooftop feels like a no brainer, and it feels like we're just making it harder and harder to accomplish. So I I think this bill

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, it does by well, it does it by setting essentially messing with the messing is pejorative. I I didn't mean to say that, but affecting the rates. Right? Impacting the actual rates as opposed to saying, this is the amount of net metering we want, and then we can all argue about what the impacts of that amount of net metering are. And when you say

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: amount, you mean a that sort of Yeah. Effect metal. Yeah. Some sort of electric. Yes. Yes. KWH or something like that.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. Think in KWH or KW, megawatt or megawatt hour terms. Yes.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: That's what

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Chair James, you mentioned less and less financially feasible. Peter sorry. Mister Sterling, mentioned $27,000 to install a net metering system. That is not financially feasible for most Vermonters no matter if we change these rates a little bit. Where these net metering systems are now going in for people who can afford it, either who can take out a loan and have the wherewithal to do it and the financial capability to do it, or they just have cash upfront. And everybody else pays. I'll get into the the cost of benefits in a little bit, but so it's it's this is not going to impact that. It it's going to continue to have everybody else pay in a regressive manner for the people who can afford to install net meter. And again, no impact to greenhouse gas emissions, which we'll get to in a second. So talking about the adjusters, mister Sterling's slide was actually useful in that respect. The adjusters have gone down historically, but that doesn't mean the rate has gone down by the same amount because the adjusters are in balancing all of those different items. The the PUC is also balancing the actual the fact that rates have been going up. It was mentioned that rates have gone up with inflation. GMB just filed for a seven and a half percent rate increase. Inflation was not seven and a half percent this year, I

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: don't believe. I think it was much lower than that. Right?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We've had I showed you a chart when I was in here talking about the annual energy report of the last few years of rate increases, many double digit rate increases, and some as much as 25%, much higher than inflation. If you go back to 2015, yeah, that looks on average, but the last few years have been a different story. So but what I was what I was talking about before is to the the blended rate, it upslides to exported generation. So that which is not netted out within a month. So that what is netted out within a month, that that compensation for net metering continues to go up with rates. And so that seven and a half rate in percent rate increase from Green Mountain Power, the net metering customer who's offsetting their behind the meter generation will see seven and a half percent more, if if that was to be approved. Seven and a half percent more of compensation for that which is netted out within the month. So if the chart that mister Sterling was showing is is only part of the picture and that there's a portion of it a portion of the compensation when they set the rates went down a little bit, and another portion continues to raise increase with retail rates. I'd like to pause on that because

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think what you're saying is that the customer isn't billed for the electronics at that is being used through their service panel to serve their load in the house.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: No. That's not

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: what I'm saying. Okay.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Can you can you say it again?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So so the customers build for all of their kilowatt hours, all of the all the generation from the net metering system is is tracked by production meter, right, in every month. Yeah. So if there's more generation than there is consumption, then that excess is compensated at the the blended rate that is up on the screen minus the adjusters. Okay. But the the portion that is not excess that offset within bond is gets It's

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the retail rate. It's the retail rate. Right. Okay. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So in in certain months, right So it's in certain months, right, in December and January, it will all be the retail rate that is offset. Right? Because it's very unlikely that you're gonna generate more than you use. But in April and May, there's yeah. Some of it will be the Okay.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And a good portion of it will be exported, the excess generation. Okay. Yeah. That's that's very helpful, sir. I can understand that. Thanks. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And I I just I will clarify that the adjusters do apply to all all compensation. So both the excess generation and the retail rate, so it's the retail, but that base rate, the adjusters, negative adjusters, it's the blended rate minus adjusters for export as generation, and it's the retail rate minus adjusters for To for the consume, the behind the meter generation. And so then but then that portion continues to increase as rates increase.

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: will agree that net metering installations have declined over over time annually. I think that's usually a number of factors. Two years ago, the legislature removed net metering, and that was an expected outcome. And so I caution against kinda legislating again to fix that expected outcome that we all planned to happen. I think group net metering was already declining in part because available sites were harder to come by and that there was a desire to have preferred sites and have solar on preferred sites. If you remember ten years ago, there was so much solar. It was going everywhere, and communities were pushing back. We had act one seventy four of 2016 because of it to give communities more say and sighting. And and the net metering front, there was legislation that directed them to push generation projects onto preferred sites. And that made it harder. And the the way the the commission did that was through adjusters. And that that kind of made the compensation less for for those projects that were going on for greenfields. And so there's there's a few reasons for why actually net metering has has declined over time, and a lot of those reasons were intended by the legislature and intended by state policy. So going back to why this does not in this this bill wouldn't impact greenhouse gas emissions. The renewable energy standard sets the pace for in state renewable deployment in Vermont. Right? Tier two, sets the pace for renewable and state deployment. So the utilities are going to retire renewable attributes to meet those requirements, and they can either acquire those renewable attributes from net metering at a higher price or through, utility contracts or, or just purchasing the wrecks on the open market at a substantially lower price. And they will the way we look at it is that the res is setting the pace of deployment, and our utilities will meet that deployment. And net metering is one option to get there, but we will get there. So it's gonna be either net metering or other renewables deployed by contract, and we wanna get there consistent with, 30 VSA two eighteen c at the most least cost in the most least cost manner. Right? Lease cost planning. And so if we're gonna get there either way, then this net metering, the this bill would have zero impact on greenhouse gas emissions. And that's even more and it would have so that's even more so. Right? It would have zero impact on the amount of generation from renewable resources in state in Vermont because tier two measures that. And then by 2030, we are a 100% renewable for most utilities, 2035 for others. And and maybe if h six zero one gets taken up, we'll be a 100 clean by that time. But so no impact greenhouse gas emissions. It really only changes what types of systems are installed and how much we will pay. On the other hand, will create upward rate pressure, and that adds to her monitor's electric burden. And every little bit counts in term in the in terms of the economic proposition to switch to electric heating or electrified transportation. And so the more we increase our costs on the electric sector, the harder it is to switch, the more money we need to either incent people to switch or or people just won't do it. The economic proposition is less. And we can say that this is a small impact. I I don't know if mister Sterling's numbers were correct, but, you know, in the grand scheme of annual electric revenues, yes, it's small, but we can't keep stacking small, small, small, small impacts on one another and kind of with the justification that each individual one is small because they all add up. And, it's like a death by a thousand cuts. I wanted to note that despite the, decline in net metering, Vermont remains number one in, per capita in clean energy jobs. We are our market clean energy market is evolving. Those jobs are in storage deployment. They're in clean transportation. They're in weatherization, and they still are in solar because we are getting we're getting more and more solar installed consistent with the trajectory of our renewable energy standard. Okay. So a functional question, I guess, here is that, in h 07/16, there's no, adjuster on behind the meter consumption. So, you know, I that means as defined in in that statute, electricity that's used or stored on-site without first passing through the provider's electric meter otherwise reaching the grid. And that builds on a concept that net metering is like efficiency. I first, it's fundamentally different than the compensation structure currently in place where, as we've described, that it's netted monthly, not hourly. So I I'm not sure that actually all utilities are yet able to measure this. You should ask them until they have advanced metering infrastructure where they could see the hourly consumption that could be an issue. But really, net metering is not like efficiency. It is in those hours that it does not export to the grid. It can look like efficiency. But really, in many other hours, it is exporting to the grid, and then it's you're taking energy back, exporting to the grid, taking energy back. So it's really we can't look at it, like, completely like efficiency. In the past, the public service department actually proposed that anything on an hourly basis that only offsets your consumption be just you just offset your retail rate on that. But anything that's exported, then you get paid what that power is worth on the market. And I'll talk I'm gonna talk about the the cost stack or the benefit stack that you could calculate there. But we've we suggested that in the past in a number of different venues, the legislature. It didn't go anywhere. So if we do wanna treat that portion like efficiency, then we should treat the other portion like the power supply resource that it is. And so and the department would be very open to that formulation as we proposed in the past.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: We we oh, So so we we talked earlier about how the how this works physically with electrons. And the the electrons go to the service panel and satisfy the load in the house before they any excess goes goes to the grid. Right? Is that is that an accurate

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. Concept? Yes. Yeah. Physically, that that should happen. Yes.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I I I I would assume that's sort of the basis of the idea here with with your picture seven sixteen is why should the customer pay a tax on on on those electrons that are satisfying the the the load in the house when it it's not it's not affecting the grid. Right. Well, they're

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: because they're well, it that could be okay except for we need to also address what's being exported on an hourly basis. We can't just address one side of the equation. So what our proposal in the past has been is is to do just that, is to say,

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: know, if you're using it behind the meter, it it's like you never used electricity from the grid. Right? But when you're exporting it, you're using the grid, You need to and, yes, you're providing value. Let's get compensated for that value. Right. But it's not the same value that you're getting when you don't use an electron. And so that's the in I I would posit that we can't address one side of the issue without addressing the other. That's Yeah. Yeah. No. I I understand that argument, and that makes some sense. But I I if I guess what

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I maybe what I'm hanging up on is how does the utility not know on a sort of on a moment to moment basis happen what happen? How much power is is being exported to the grid from from the if if there's if there's power being exported to grid, how much is being exported?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, I think this this is a that's a question for for the utilities. But my understanding, which they could correct me, is that if you don't have advanced metering already installed, you're just think of the old meters. They're not quite this old anymore, but it just kinda spins backwards. Right? They don't they're measuring that consumption. They're going out and reading that every hour or every month. I'm sorry. And then So that's only thing they have. Right. And they know they know exactly at a system level, you know, where they're connected to Velcro or a higher up system in an hour, how much they're using, and that's how they can plan their power supply. But in a on an individual house basis without those meters, I don't believe they could have a police check with utilities. Okay.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So they would have a meter on the on the panels that would say, you've generated this much, and they would have a meter on that on the pole or whatever that says on the side of the house that says, this is how much you've used in the in the period since the last week.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right.

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. Yeah. So the generation meter is hourly, but the other one may not be. I mean, rebound power is and a lot of utilities have advanced metering. I just wanted to point out that this is not not everybody yet. They're getting there, though. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's my question. Is it is it just the munis that are left?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The Boston Well, I have to yeah. You should ask Washington Electra Electric Cooperative, WEC, about their particular advanced metering system they're replacing in the process of upgrading. And so they're know, they were one of the first movers, and I'm not sure that system they chose can handle it or not. But, otherwise, it is munis that are all are are stepping towards it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: you. Back to your scenario. So with the offset power consumption behind the meter, and then that goes out. But I brought up something similar in conversation in here. Is there a way that this can be constructed so that people who have taken the initiative to put solar in are still seeing a savings, but at the same time, the ratepayers aren't subsidizing. Is there is there a formula or a way that we could look at that where it's advantageous for all parties, all ratepayers, all people with solar so that it works for everybody so that we're not having this constant discussion on them metering, meeting standard offer, and all that. It was

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It's not I'd like I'd like for it to be that easy, and then maybe maybe it wouldn't be in here so

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: often. But you

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: can't get your tongue. Yes.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. There are.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is funny. So

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: so I think what what we're talking about, and hopefully what we're talking about, is everything just going forward, first of all. And so historically, like, people got the deal that they got, and we're not nobody's trying to change that. Right? There's like yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Actually, what? No. Kidding.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well no. And so but going forward, is there a way that everybody benefits? I I think it's it's just the balancing act that, you know, if it's net metering, just the economies of scale. Right? A five k w system on a roof is going to cost more than a larger system on a per megawatt hour basis. And so it is the balancing act of all of the objectives that you all have put in for the PUC to consider, in in trying to get the right level. So there may be some cost shift, maybe that cost shift is worth it. There may be, and it it just really depends on how you weigh the different factors.

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: don't know if there's a there's not a clean answer to that question. I I, you know, I feel like with every policy, 99% of the time, there are winners and losers. And so Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I mean, there there's a balance.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. There absolutely is. It just from my point of view, I just wanna get away from the constant argument about net metering and and just come up with a solution that works. Some people aren't gonna like it. That's a given. Some people will like it. But I'm trying to get that middle balance where it benefits everyone to some extent. Right. Well, I I mean, we we've long thought that our our proposed solution where it is, on you know, if you're offsetting consumption in the hour, retail rate, and then if you're exporting, you get compensated for what it's worth. That is is a fair balance, but not everybody agrees with that balance. And that that will, you know, that will change the pace of net metering deployment and the cost to consumers who are investing in it. And that's that's it. So that's the balance.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And the reasons people bring solar in are benefit the the environment. That's right. And benefit themselves. So that balance has gotta be looked at as well by the people that are actually doing the.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So you you say what what the electricity's worth, but that's that's the question at hand. You're saying what the, you know, what the utility could buy from another source. Right? Well And that doesn't factor in many of the benefits that we're trying to get to the bottom of here. Like, you know, the the efficiency analogy, I think, is is a good one. You know, with efficiency, Vermont has given Vermonter a little $3,000,000,000 worth of efficiency over its lifetime. Right? So that's that's electric sales that the utilities have not gotten. And and, you know, the department uses that lost sales argument because you can't that's that's money that they can't disperse over

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Over their fixed cost to lower electric rates. Right? So, you know, are we against efficiency Vermont, and lowering costs for for Vermonters? Yeah. You know, that's one of the questions. Then, know, just yesterday, there's the article in Digger about the fight in Lowell. So we're pitting this whole community against each other because there's an industrial solar facility proposed to go in on agricultural land. And so, you know, we can put solar panels on top of existing buildings uncontroversially, not pitting neighbor against neighbor and at at at a higher rate than this industrial facility. But and but none of these benefits are taken into account in the in the department's calculation of what electricity is worth in calculus that you just presented. And there are other there are other ones too. We haven't even gotten to, but I'm just using that as an example of, like it's it's not it's not a a black and white number of what the electricity is worth. You can't just say, well, I can buy industrial solar here, so that's what they should get compensated for in your scenario. There's a

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: lot of I I agree that there's a lot of benefits. So I if I I so I'm not I don't actually disagree with you except for where you say that the department looks at it. It looks at the lost sales from a utility and and accounts that. That's something that Rev has articulated many times, and I don't

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: TJ, have a report here. Your department, 2023. Net metering reduces the utility sales without reducing fixed costs. Therefore, there are fewer megawatts to spread the costs over resulting in higher retail sales for other customers. This is and you're talking about the impact of rates on other

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That that's that's a general thing that happens, but when we're evaluating the benefits and costs and a benefit cost analysis of a policy choice, this is more how we look at it. And so this is the study we did in 2023. This is not net metering. This was in the res context. And I know there's a lot of controversy about this, but this technical analysis was, done by Sustainable Energy Advantage, a respected consultant in the industry. We had a stakeholder advisory group that included Renewable Energy Vermont and several developers and utilities. And we went through and talked about what the costs and benefits are. This this chart is to the they can make it bigger here. Yes. Oh, darn it. What is RIM? That's the rate impact measure. So, that was, the naming convention that SE sustainable energy advantage use that, this is like the cost and benefits to the utility system. I'll show you a societal one in a second. But, and these are the costs and benefits under the different scenarios that were evaluated. And I I don't bring this up to talk about the numbers per se, but just the categories of benefits that are on the the right side, I have that right, here of your chart. Right? And so we don't we you you gave the example of land use impact specifically, and I agree we do, like, in in kind of that community impact, and that is not an impact that we evaluate. I don't know how to put a number on that, but we could put, you you could direct in this kind of formulation putting a number on that. But a lot of the other numbers that are, claims that we don't think about when we're making a policy, right, there's difference between doing a benefit and a cost analysis when you're considering a policy, and here are the impacts of what is going on as, like, a you know, like, how this, like, in practice or in the past impacted, like, today's rates. And so, that's that's why there's a difference between what's said in their report and what I'm what I'm sharing with you now. But these are the list of benefits. Right? And you can see there's the the red is the cost under under these scenarios. And this again, this is mostly, like, the the res as a whole and showing the overall cost of of renewable energy on and solar was considered to be around 10¢ a kilowatt hour, which is actually proven to be a low estimate. But we have the capacity benefits, the transmission and distribution, which just thirty minutes ago, heard we don't evaluate. Again, rev we this this study actually came after the New Hampshire study that so it's Vermont specific and more relevant, but the New Hampshire study keeps getting excited. So because this doesn't look as good to certain stakeholders. But reliability benefits, right, reduced losses. You're reducing losses if you are generating on-site, and that can be different if it's a utility scale project or a behind the meter project. Net metering would actually have a bigger loss reduction value. And then there's some greenhouse gas benefits, environmental health benefits, price suppression. Those three things don't show up in a rate impact test. They don't show up to the utility system and how revenues are collected, costs are paid. What the other side of this, this is under a societal test. Right? And now we see all of those scenarios and have greater benefit than the cost because we're talking about greenhouse gas benefits. We're talking about price suppression in the market. Can you define price suppression? That's where, you essentially have less demand, and so that means well, let me let me back up. Price suppression is when a zero cost resource, when it goes into the market, like a reduction in demand or a resource that enters the market, of bids into the ISO New England wholesale market at $0, like our wind projects, etcetera, they actually, they reduce the they suppress the market clearing price, the market price for all customers. And so it can have a really big effect. What happens is ISO New England when selecting hourly, which resources will run, they choose the cheapest units first, and then everybody gets paid. They they you have enough demand, and you stack up those cheap units, and then the next most expensive one, the next most expensive one until you meet the needed demand. And then every one of those units gets paid that price that that the most expensive one that was needed to meet the demand actually Determines the price. Determines the price, right? And so if you lower demand or add a zero cost resource, then you actually lower that bid stack of generating resources. So instead of, you know, $80 a megawatt hour, it's $75 a megawatt hour, and everybody gets paid $75 a megawatt hour. And those are real savings to the whole system as a whole. So those benefits, they show up in this rate impact measure test, but really small because the impacts to Vermont's clearing price are relatively small. But when you look at it and the region, now you're paying everybody in New England and Massachusetts and Connecticut that price, that lower price and, or all of that load has to pay that lower price and everybody in the rest of New England benefits. So it turns into a societal benefit. It doesn't impact Vermont though, if that makes sense. And that's why there's a difference in this gray bar here on price suppression. Mhmm. These price suppression benefits and the societal tests are all happening in the rest of New England and not in Vermont. There's a little bit happening in Vermont, but it's a small line here on the benefit side. Rutland? Or can I just I I just just finish one last point on this? And the the other big stack on the societal one is the greenhouse gas benefits. Right? That's one of the biggest ones. If we're talking about a choice between meeting our renewable energy standard with, utility scale solar or net metering solar, we get the same exact greenhouse gas benefits from that choice, which the renewable energy standard has set the pace for. So in net metering, we wouldn't count these if we're just looking at net metering specifically because we're gonna get those. We we count those when we're looking at the the res as a whole. Right? Or the decision the decision of the res, like, we increase our renewable requirements? Well, that will have a societal impact on greenhouse gas emissions. And what I say often in this committee is that there's often a balance to get to your, you know, is there a right solution for everybody between societal benefits and ratepayer costs? In this instance with net metering, I don't think any of those greenhouse gas benefits actually happen because the choice is between utility scale solar or net metering solar. There may be other land use ones are a fair discussion. I don't know what the right answer is. And if it's greater than zero or it can go both ways, I'm not I'm not sure. I would need to think about that some more. But

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I just want before I get to it, Troy, I just wanna respond to the conversation, you know, that we've all been having about cost versus benefits. And I just wanna zoom out for one minute and kind of try to reset at a higher level, which is that, you know, the nations in Vermont's transition to renewables are facing devastating rollbacks at the federal level and setbacks at the state level as well, setbacks and hurdles at the state level. And when you talk about set needing a balance and wanting to try to incentivize, you know, the good things that we wanna achieve, I I feel like we so often focus on very small cost shifts and use that as a reason to stop good work. And you said every little bit counts, and I would say, yeah, on the flip side as well. You know, every hurdle we place in the way of Vermonters being able to deploy solar on their own roofs in a way that is noncontroversial, financed largely by the homeowners, doesn't get into big siding battles is something we should be encouraging, especially if the size of the cost shift is so small. So I look at your argument and I turn it on its head and say, if we use a tiny, tiny cost shift as a reason to stop all this good work, then we're just dead in the water. So I I don't I I feel like it's I feel like we often get a a real forest for the trees problem.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, I mean, if you're defining our goals as to make sure every Vermonter can put solar on their roof, that's a different goal than the construct that the PUC has. If the priority is greenhouse gas emissions, then the I think my argument that there there's no change in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is different. Right? And so it really depends on what you wanna prioritize. And and so do we wanna have a small cost shift to have people who can afford it, save money on their electric bills or, and install solar? Or do we wanna keep get the same amount of electrons from renewable generation for a slightly lower cost? And those are fair trade the the I'm not are the trade offs or some of the trade offs, not even all of them. And, you know, people can have different opinions on those, but I think that, well, I just wanna I mean, my goal today was to kinda l, talk about those trade offs and make sure that we're understanding what those trade offs are when we talk about this. And in our opinion, no greenhouse gas emissions, change and that this is a, you know, if we have other primary goals considering we're, you know, number one per capita in the nation in clean energy jobs and considering who can afford to actually take advantage of the incentives we're providing, then those are different those are different priorities, and the that's it's fair to have different priorities.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm not sure many people would argue that the primary goal here is to help people who can afford it save money on their electric bills. I I don't think that's the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: In my mind, that's the outcome.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Not my you said Yeah. The primary goal. I don't think anybody would argue that that's our primary goal here. Correct. Torre?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. There's a lot of cost shifts that we've heard in this committee, including. You know? And that's a policy decision. Great. So to your point, rep Southworth, you know, there is upward rate pressure when we have a lot of different policy goals, and we're trying to do right fiber monitors with a tool that we have, which is on our list of things. But I'm curious because now technology is advancing and there's, you know, power in pairing rooftop solar and storage. How well or how does that change the calculus when you think about a holistic investment like that? And do we have numbers? Are we getting our heads around that? Because that to me is a really important thing to elevate right now as we think about the next phase.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. So the way we have looked at storage is is kinda individually because you could have the storage kinda join a solar unit, or you could have it separately, and you get you get similar benefits from that. And so storage with the right assumptions and if you operate it in a manner to reduce peaks, and you could actually there's a there's a benefit stack there. If we add storage to the to kind of a, you know, a net metering rider on the tariff or something, like, then you would you would need to think about the cost of the storage also and see how that balances out. How does it is more storage is more solar being provided at better times to increase some of those transmission and distribution benefits? And you'd need to, kinda do that calculation. But really, I think, you would be you can isolate the storage costs and benefits, and it's it's almost the same calculation. I'm not sure it it changes because you're still reducing those peaks and using and acquiring that value from reducing peaks with storage. That's the primary value. And I'm not sure it would make sense to kinda combine

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it with that metering policy. So

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: we still have federal incentives for storage. Right? Yes. Because that's part of, I think, the intent behind this bill is that we have this huge roadblock right now for solar, for, you know, rooftop. And but yet we don't have the same one for a battery. So I'm just wondering if we could look at making a short term subsidy so that and then mitigate it further with incentivizing the batteries. And that this overall, the cost shift would be low and more palatable.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Oh, sorry. First one was next. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I mean, the the the whole virtual power plant element of this is very real and a very big benefit. The the reality on the ground is, you know, the vast majority of batteries are going in conjunction with that either in residential solar. Right? And so it's a system, and it makes sense if you're installing, you know, solar on your on your house to to incorporate batteries from both from a, you know, resilience point of view, which is another kind of unquantifiable benefit. But it's also great benefit to other rate payers because of the the peak shaving, the the ability to control load on the on the grid. And I'm sure we'll hear from the background power about this, but there's there's all kinds of corollary benefits to having this virtual power plant in in Vermont. And that is, I think, relevant to this the net metering discussion.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I don't think it should be viewed in isolation. Yeah. I'm I'm not sure that the vast majority of batteries are going in with solar. I I haven't seen that data. I I don't I don't know that that's true. It'd be good to ask Green Mountain Power about that and see if they know. But there's so I just wanted to check on that. I I don't you know, that discussion of the virtual power plant is I think that battery is really independent of the of the solar unit in terms of its ability to be called upon. And so I don't I don't not sure that there's it's it's necessary or a good idea to kinda combine these two issues into one where we could lose some granularity of understanding the impacts of each. And so there may be good reasons for that, but I

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: makes a nervous. Just

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: conceptually, not because I know what the outcome is.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rep. Sibilia? So I'm interested in the cost shift and trying to jog the memory banks to think about where we could see this data. So it's my understanding over time that we've seen really high adoption rates of renewables in WEC territory, for instance, and understanding so I guess I'm asking you if you if you have done analysis or if I've maybe seen the analysis and if you could redirect me to it on the differences in the cost shift related to the different utilities and also if there's any connection to the rates of distance that we see along with that cost shift. And and specifically, wonder about WEP because of their high adoption rate. So and I apologize if this is obvious to where I should be looking for this type of analysis.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: This is the the 2023 report that I was referring to. There's a chart here that says the rate impact. So that's not specifically the cost shift, but it's the real result of the cost shift. WACC was I mean, I I'd like to get information on how this is calculated, but the WACC was at 4.2. And that's high, but GMP was at 6.5%. Whereas something like BED was at 1.4%. So there's a big variety from utility. I don't know where these numbers come from, but just taking this at face value, that's Mhmm.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right. Do you understand my question?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. So those numbers were had been reported to us by the utilities, and so that's where they came from. But I I don't think we we have not done analysis in terms of, like, the diff those differences and how they relate to disconnects. Right. And I'm not sure if we could pin it on that one thing and be cautious about, like Mhmm. Correlating it to, hey. There's Yeah. This number here in our report that and but, you know, had high rates anyway. And so is that more of a reason or what the incremental value? I think that'd be that's not an analysis we have.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So one of the and, you know, this is a point that you and I may not have quite agreed on in the past in terms of our regulatory frames, for instance, the rest. But to me, the differences in our utilities and what we see happening there is really worthy of us making sure we understand. This is not when we put policy in place, it's not one size fits all. I mean, there are really different impacts and there are places in the state that are under significant stress. Two co ops are and is the most rural in in the country, I believe, Chile. I might be stretching that, but definitely in Vermont. But GMP, Weck, and Beck are most rural, and there's a lot of stress with climate change and these different rates of adoption and different incentives and programs. So just feels like something we really have to understand at a utility level when we're thinking of this policy. So I don't know if you would push back on that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: No. I don't I don't think I have any pushback on that. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, like like Laura was saying before, I mean, some of these utilities don't even have the technology. We have smart meters and whatnot. Yeah. So there's that there's that element which we need to keep in mind when we're doing this. That's that's to put it in, it's real.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think we've funded

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Coming because, yeah, you the legislature funded it with a cost share, and they're moving in that direction. And so yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But they just haven't gotten very happy. Right. And, as I heard you say, maybe needing to modernize their system.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, they're also got funding through that Yeah. As well in our and

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: so they had AMI. That's coming.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. But the modernization of their AMI is coming also. Might be what AMI Oh, advanced metering infrastructure. Sorry. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Smart Grid. Fiber is helping. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: K. That's all that's all I had.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: today. I know you're coming back. Right?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Great.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, thanks a lot, TJ. We really always appreciate oh, oops.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So the group net metering is gone, and the group net metering was the community sites that built maybe less than a 150 kilowatt. Right. And and then people bought in, and they subscribed to portions of that production of that site. That was one type of group, that metering. Okay. Correct. The other was the person who could put the the cell the site on his garage, say, an equipment garage, a very large garage down the road, but the office is up the road in town. He used to be able to manufacture the garage and get credit for the electricity that he used at the office, But that's gone away. No no more. No.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Mostly. There's a there's one exception, I think, if you're if it's adjacent, if that garage was kind of

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That adjacent properties

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: would be the

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: rule or or yeah. There was a whole rule

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: about that. Mostly mostly gone. Yeah. It was up to 500.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: You couldn't put it down in the industrial section of town where you're maintain your equipment garage and sell it to the office up in in town. Right.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: You used to be able

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: to kinda combine your Combine this. You could you could matter of fact, you could manufacture it in Rochester and sell it to your use it in Brandon.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: As long as you're in the same utility.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right. Same utility. But that's no that's no more Correct. And what happened to What happened to people who missed the vote vote and develop this stuff? You know, to feel this knocking on a content adjacent property there, what do they have to go into power purchase agreement with the utility? Yeah. Yes. I mean,

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: there was a there was a year or, potentially more. But so there was a little bit of a runway, not a huge. Now, yes, if you had a site and you still wanted to develop, it's either a purchase power agreement or you sell it into the regional market, which is it all goes to purchase power agreements because the our utilities can provide more value for the market because of some of the benefits of losses or The best. Reduced by higher That's

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the alternative to somebody Right. Who may have developed something. Yes. Yeah. In that regard for whatever this change or date. Yeah. And that that was on the date of application for the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: What the I I'm actually not sure. I don't recall what that threshold was. I think it was For the certificate of public health. So most of

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the time, it was applied by this day for your CPG, but you could

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it doesn't matter. Yeah. But everybody's too late. They're gonna do it now. Yeah. Right.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So I'm not sure what the what the No. Have

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: constituency with asking. Okay. And and I Even That's the reason for that question. And I Makes sense. I only know what the developer tells me. I don't know how I can find it.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Did you have a a nice annoying question? The 4% that Vermont pays for transmission upgrades, It's how is that that's 4% of what well, how is that calculated, our portion? And the what I'm trying to get at is any is any of the price suppression on other New England states factored into? Do we get any credit for that in that calculation, the 4% that we pay for Not in the price suppression, but

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: it would be in an, avoided transmission and distribution value. And so in general. Right. So there's, generally, we assign a value actually similar to efficiency in this regard, that is, reduction of transmission. Right? It it's actual transmission build, right, load growth related transmission build, and we would say, the peak is happening at, seven at night. Solar has a little bit of value if it's a summer peak and summer is not, it's a winter peak, probably not, right, it's dark, but, that value would be assigned to storage. It has, you know, maybe a 5% or a 3% coincidence factor at that time. So if it's a one megawatt project, you get, like, 30 k w of value to against, like, the the deferral avoidance value of a big transmission project. And so in a societal basis, you would count that whole value and then what how that plays out to Vermont rates, you would just apply 4% of that value, but you also have the opportunity to sometimes Vermont load changes impacts transmission projects in other states. Right? And so generally, just would apply the whole value and not not 4% of it. So if we're avoiding a T and D constraint, like an actual physical project is deferred or avoided, we we account for a value for that. It's like $80 a k w or something.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Alright. So you went way into Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'm sorry. Geek theory. Sorry. Just Easy to happen. Take

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: a step back. Okay. I think I'm a

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: little bit more concerned.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: 4% we pay 4% as a state Yes. To ISO New England to compensate for transmission upgrades. Across the region. Across the region. Right. How is that 4% calculated?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. So it at 4% is our share or it's kind of our average share of the monthly peaks. So our share in some months of of the, say, take Velco as our system. Right? Velco's share of New England's load total load at ISO New England's monthly peak every month for the twelve months. On average, we're about a 4% share of that, and that's how it's calculated. So it's just DELCO divided by the entire region. Solar is assumed to be operating at that time at the time of the monthly peaks. We'd actually look at every month and say, okay. Zero in January, zero in February because those peaks are at seven at night to start, but you get, you know, 10% of the value in in other months or whatever. You that's how

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: you would, number of value for that. So, theoretically, ten or fifteen years ago when peak was earlier in the day, there would have been a lot more benefit. Yes. Like, at a 04:00 peak. Yeah. Solar is a lot more of the benefit than 07:00. Agreed. Agreed.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But so the cost suppression that you had in your slide now, you know, it lowers it doesn't really give us that much benefit on on that. But, I mean, it's not taken into account in that 4% number. So the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: what I showed on the slide was kinda forward going. Right? So the historical, if you were to go back and look at what the value of the solar that we have installed now is, what you I think methodologically, would say, okay. Our load was x. Our load would have been this, but for the resources we have and that delta is maybe it changed what time the peak was or whatever, but you you could find the delta in there and that would be benefit associated with, like, the historical solar. Going forward. Now you just assume where what time it's gonna happen. And it's not in the price suppression value, though. It's in the transmission benefit values. Price suppression is just like the energy markets and capacity markets. Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. That's that's up. Alright. Sorry.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I I went back into cloud. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It lost me there for a minute. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. On that note, where's my gavel?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks for coming in, and we will see you tomorrow.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: See you tomorrow.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And just to look ahead this afternoon, we have testimony from one to about 01:30, Then and we're gonna have a little bit of a gap, and then we'll be back at 02:15 and Okay? 02:40 All right, then go off five.