Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty, welcome back everybody. It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. And we are here on Wednesday, February 18. And we basically have until lunch for our committee discussion on first H716, an act relating to net metering. And then next H753, an act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections. So the point of today's conversation is to get a really clear sense of the committee from each committee member about how they're feeling about these bills, what we think the next steps are so that we can manage our time between now and crossover. Why don't we start with seven sixteen. I'm just going to pull it up. We've taken a pretty significant amount of testimony on both of these bills. But H seven sixteen remains as introduced. So if folks wanna, you know, be referring to testimony or be referring to the bill I'm gonna be looking at the bill as we go through. And trying to take some notes from the.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So this is Rutland's bill. And, as I mentioned, it has not been introduced. I mean, it hasn't been amended since it was introduced. So, and it's also a short bill. Basically, as we know from our walk through and from the testimony, it would basically eliminate the negative adjuster on behind the metered consumption. Rutland, And, you explain to me what else the bill would do? I'm gonna turn this over to you for a minute.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. It's just a two element bill to freeze the negative rate adjuster for negative 4¢ and to, eliminate it on behind the meter consumption.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And, why don't you give us your you know, we we talked when you introduced the bill, but why don't you give us a little bit of a overview about where you're thinking the testimony has gone, what you think next steps might be? Mhmm. And sorry I didn't ask you ahead of time or give you any heads up.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Actually, if you don't mind, madam chair, I'd like to hear from the committee. I have my opinions.

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

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But I'd like to hear from the committee first, and then I'll state my opinion.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sounds great. I'll yep. And I'll go last two. So open discussion. Now's the time, and it's really important that we hear from everybody. Yep, rep cam.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You guys need buzzers. So

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I am really interested in supporting the renewable energy and the solar industry in the city. I I am concerned about this being the way to do that. It feels to me like we need a really big look at how the whole thing looks, which is a thing undertaking. I feel like we have time for that right now. So yeah. And that's that's that's that's what I can term. It is seems like it's a it's simple solution to a complex problem, and I'm worried about making it worse.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It how would it make it worse?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, just

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's sorry to put you on the spot. I'm just really trying to, like, make sure I understand where everybody's at.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I I guess I don't really know what I feel like there are unintended consequences and and and foreseeable consequences. So I don't know how exactly it would make it worse, except that it is it sort of exacerbates the the the problem of I think, the perception of cost shifting and some real cost shifting, but a perception that the probability is bigger than the actual at the moment, and perhaps creates more of a backlash. That's certainly probably public opinion. So, yeah, I don't I don't really know. K. I don't wanna say things, of course, but it just it's it just it just seems like, like I said, a simple solution to complex problems.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So would you, are there any changes to the bill as introduced that you would suggest or consider? Or are you just feeling like this isn't not the right solution at the right time and you want a broader look? Sorry, I'm really putting people on the spot. Yeah. You know, got a we're at a crossroads here.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I guess I'm sympathetic to the to the idea of taking the behind the meter solar out of the equation, but then it it sort of it it gets into battery storage and the and the use of battery storage. And whether a homeowner or, I guess somebody has to be a homeowner, can have access to the power that's in the battery to even out their usage, which that's part of the whole big thing that is better than what's in the bill, and also would require changing at least GMP's battery program because the way their battery program works, basically, the powers of the battery is is for their usage only unless there's an outage, and then the customer can have access to it. So it's a it's a it's a bigger balancing issue.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: what it feels like to me.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. Who's next? Sibilia.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm a hard no. I think that we stopped having a legislature set these rates and moved it to the PUC for a reason. I think it is a bad move to go back. Having said that, I am really upset about what we are seeing federally. I am sympathetic to the issue of the solar industry and do not want to see it, falter. I would love to see alternative types of incentives. I think those would be appropriate. This program, I think, has gone as far along as it makes sense. You know, when we have something that is emergent and nascent, and now it has really gotten to a place where it's impacting it's impacting others who we also want to elect our funding. And so things like refundable tax credits, looking at potentially general fund obligations, looking at some, you know, language with our town energy committees, or other types of incentives. This I am I'm done here in terms of the solar industry. I'm very interested in helping them in other ways and thinking about other ways that and I think it's important that we do. But this I'm done from February. We intentionally removed as part of the res group net metering, and I think we have not sufficiently replaced, you know, thinking about renewables for housing and and other I mean, we haven't solved the the loss there yet, and I think we need to with some intention. Hopefully, are we completely dead on solar for all, or do we have a chance in court? I'm asking the director I'm asking director Poore if I may.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We for the record, I mean

[TJ Poore (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Department of Public Service)]: TJ Poore, director of regulated utility planning, public service department. It's a hard question to answer. It's in the courts, and it's gonna be a while in the courts. And so we don't know. Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I do think, you know, we need more power. We need more clean and renewable power. I think it is imperative that we figure out how to keep this industry, alive with, you know, what we are seeing, federally and to help Vermonters switch off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, which is gonna take a long time. So while I am a hard no on expanding net metering or returning that argument to the legislature, I am a hard yes and willing to jump in on other types of

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: you. Who's next?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think I was just gonna say, we can go around the table then we're not fighting each other. Since we got it started. Yeah. This one's complicated. And, you know, I love to stop solar. And I think the point that Scott makes about unintended consequences is a good one. And for instance, I can imagine a utility paying this getting locked into this rate if we freeze it and then having that as an obligation and not having the money to put towards some more effective program that comes along later. You know, I for me, the the the piece about not charging people for electricity they generate on the roof and use in their home that never hits the grid, that feels pretty clear to me. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Clear as in?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Clear as in we should do that. Yeah. To me, that feels I know there are some feels like second order, secondary consequences to that, but, you know, I just keep thinking about how irritated I'd be if someone charged me for eating a tomato I grew in my garden. That would irritate me. So there's that. On

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: yeah. On that meter, and,

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: you know, I I also sort of generally, philosophically, from an economist's point of view, know, rent freezes messed stuff up, and price freezes messed stuff up, and wage freezes messed stuff up. Like, it took a long history of taking that flexibility out of the market, messing things up. So it worries me a little bit on that level. And, also, it feels like I don't know using it minus 4¢ is the right level or not. And I also don't know, you know, I mean, basis we use for that adjuster is the retail price, which is not the price utilities pay for electricity they get elsewhere. So I don't even know if they're using the right case. Should it be wholesale plus 10 instead of retail minus four? So all that's a long way of saying that I feel like I

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: don't know enough to have a very clear opinion on that. K.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Oh, did I just go

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, yes. We're going around. Sorry. Yes?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I share similar sentiments. Dara has learned about our local companies, our workforce being impacted right now and want to be able to help. But I I also have had my concerns about where net metering is in the life cycle in this very dynamic space. And really eager for, you know, the compensation conversation and study, which I know our PDC is equipped to do. So I also was really paying attention to the numbers that were shared with us from our co ops and seeing what their perception of cost shift looked like, what it amounted to, and, you know, and understanding that we're not all in agreement about how benefits are quantified. So, you know, and we just, as a group, we're talking about it all the time about cost shift in different forms and making decisions of, okay, it's okay to subsidize this group now, but not okay right now to do it this way. And, I mean, it's frustrating. It's a frustrating space. And for me, the rate design piece of it, I know is very powerful and important, but also not something I have any depth in, or I I do feel more comfortable having those decisions handled by the PUC, but I also heard that we can give a new directive that they're operating off of two things, the lease cost and what the other one

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Reliability. In state.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: In state.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And maybe that's not enough. Like, do we need to to give them more to work with so we accomplish the policy goals we have? Like, are we hamstringing ourselves? So I'm grateful for this bill for opening up my thinking And also, like, Rep Sibilia, really wanna see some other form of incentive come into play. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, I certainly am in favor of the not having to pay to grow, slice, and eat your own tomatoes. And I've and I could I use the tomato analogy with thinking about this. Well, I think that the Do

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: have to slice it, or can you just eat it?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: You put the whole thing as long as you you've gotta cut out the stem first. Yes. You do. Okay? So that you we gotta do some preparation. So the but when it comes to the the time of day or time of use,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it's just

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: there for people who have advanced metering, and some of the other utilities are or the other utilities are gonna advance this. So with advanced metering, they know by the hour or by the fifteen minute increment, whenever they do their reading and when you use it. The negative 4¢ that you consume in the in the system is set up now, you could charge your battery. You pay you pay 4¢ when it goes through your generation meter. You pay 4¢ on everything there. You then may charge your own battery for that and not export it to the grid. But then when you the grid takes it back in times that they need your energy, then you're paying for it again when you put it put it back into the battery from your generation. So there's a double billing in there of 8¢ for those, and I'm not it's only 10 k w battery. I think that what the public service department wrote with their testimony in this is the real value of the energy that's being exported at this time that's being exported. So rather than the minimal wholesale or average wholesale, I look at the incremental cost because the standard offer programs, it's only 1.2 127.5 megawatts in the standard offer. Some of those are getting 30¢ a kilowatt hour. So why can't the rate rather be accept the average the utility can take either the average residential rate or their residential rate. So if you're a Green Mountain Power sells at 21.475 residential rate, the reimbursement rate is 18. Other places in the other utilities might have a lower rate that they could compensate at. But I would look at maybe the compensation rate being the average cost of all the generations in either statewide or in the utility. We heard from WEC they don't have to WEC is exempt from standard offer because they're a 100% renewable. But we also heard from utilities that net generation is of cost to other members who don't participate. So maybe it's through away with the net is by the billing period. So so it's how you net it out in the billing period, call it thirty days, but maybe more time of time of generation, time of use. So as it as the bill sits now, I would if it's not revised, I would. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Sorry. I'm just making sure I know.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: You're saying time of generation at the blended rate without adjusters. Is that what you said?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: With the blended rate, the adjuster reduces the rate that they're getting instead of getting the No.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I know that works. I'm trying to clarify what you're

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So it does.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So so if if they're buying so much at six and so much at eight, but they're buying a 100 and whatever they're buying. Summation of everything, they may raise it, you know, 10, 11¢, I 12¢, 13. But this this to to to to lock somebody in with a sealed rate of 4¢ is contrary to what they expressed in the real the real value of the electricity is not determined by selecting a set figure. I was just trying to

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: understand your suggestion more clearly. You were saying just take the statewide blended rate and

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Statewide blended cost of not the not the not the blended residential rate. And we don't I'm not even sure if they how they calculate the the blended rate that has a a two year a two year every two years, they determine the rate. So what we have in net generations is we have the new your net generator by the year you got your CPG. Okay.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So now I'll now just clarify. Thank you.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What's that?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I've done a lot of thinking on this.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I've talked with members of

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: the committee about it. It just I honestly cannot understand. I understand why, but behind the meter consumption adjusters ludicrously at best. I I don't believe that should even exist. If someone is generating their own power, they should not having to be paying for what they're generating and using. That just doesn't make sense at all.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: With that

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: said, there's a report from 2023 from the PUC on net metering, and I've read through that three or four different times. But at the very end of it, there's a lot of information that suggests different ways of charging for net metering, if you you call it net metering. I believe net metering is at its end of its cycle with it the way it is currently, and it needs to be looked at and redone. Whether that process includes directing the PUC to investigate and come up with something, maybe that's the start. But I do believe that we have to do something different. I don't own solar. A lot of people on the committee do. I can't afford to do it. That's just because I can't afford to. But I understand why people put it up, and I understand the comfort of creating your own energy and being able to use your own energy, but to pay for it, again, it's just nuts. The end result is I think that we have to redo net metering. We have to look at it and start fresh because what it was like when it started isn't what we're living in now. I guess that's

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: where I'll end up. I mean,

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I've read enough to have ideas, but the ideas are so scattered that I think I'll just keep that quiet. I do believe that time of use, charging versus you know, I think that's something that needs to be looked at because we did all see that, you know, when the panels are producing may not be when they're using it. So we have to look at how we can make that equitable across the board.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But I will be a no on the bill at

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: this point. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So me. Well, I would I would probably vote yes. On the bill as introduced, understand that I'm outnumbered. What I'm looking for is a solution that feels more immediate, I guess, because it's you know, and I I know I've mentioned this a lot of time in our committee discussions, but it's not gonna surprise anybody on the committee that, you know, I'm a big fan of solar generation. I think it's a really important part of our energy future, and I think that we should be as a legislature, I think we should be incentivizing it and supporting it. And I'm watching, know, sort of the battles over citing and even our community even our own committee conversations about single plant language. And so just to reiterate something I've said a lot of times in the past couple weeks, to be disincentivizing rooftop solar, which is utterly noncontroversial. Right? Like, my neighbors are not gonna care if I put, you know, a solar array on my garage, which is exactly, you know, what I did a long time ago. And so it it is the to me, the easiest, simplest, least, lowest barrier solution. And I feel like we should be doing everything in our power to make it easier for folks to do it. Instead, we're fighting, you know, intense federal headwinds with the loss of the tax credit. We are fighting regulatory headwinds here with the constant, you know, downward adjustment of the rates. So, we're just making it harder and harder and harder to pick the lowest hanging fruit. And that's that's really frustrating to me. So so I guess I'll turn it over to Rut Morrow. Then we need to decide about paths. Right? So okay.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Thank you all for your input. Appreciate it. You know, obviously, the genesis of this was was the the disappearance of the solar and the federal tax credit. And, so I've you know, I'm trying this was a an interim step to try to address multiple issues. One is the loss of the hard won jobs in Vermont. We have a lot of good paying stable solar jobs which are about to disappear. You know, in testimony, someone mentioned the California net metering three point o, and I started looking at that. California lost 19,000 jobs in the first year after that went into effect in in solar in solar installation business. You know, they they knew they were gonna use it, but that that was a, you know, a policy choice, and that might be inevitable. I really hope it's not because I think solar is an important part of our, of our future. It's really should you know, it's in the cheapest, most stable, forms of power. Know, in our statute, we have conflicting, priorities. You know, we have this lease cost mandate, but we also have a lot of language around in state generation. And how those two are balanced is a real question in my mind because I think there's a conflict there with both the department and the PUC and how how those are valued relative to each other. You know, I think there's general agreement that we need to further the beneficial electrification in Vermont to reduce price volatility for Vermonters among other things. And so there is a there's a tension there between this cost shift and rates potentially going up a little bit versus keeping rates low and further enabling beneficial electrification. So that that's something that's just kind of inherent in how we've got things structured now. Another element of this for me is that I'd much rather see solar going on top of existing buildings than in our ag fields and in our forests. Now it's, we're losing significant amount of agricultural land in Vermont every year, and it does solar in fields does have its place, but as you can see just from the last few weeks, you know, it it does promote conflict in our communities, and it's can be controversial and maybe not the highest and best use of that land. So ways to promote putting solar on buildings is instead of in ag and forest land is an important consideration. Another element of this is, like, right now, given the loss of their credits and and the negative rate adjusters, solar is really basically only for rich people.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Sure.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And so the benefits of the resilience that you get from producing your own power and more and more producing and storing your power, shouldn't be just the domain of of rich people. And that's that's where we're at now. If you just look at how the numbers pencil out, that's that's the fact of the matter. So that's another element of this. Just kind of rambling, but these are the elements that I'm considering when I think about this. You know, the the cost shift is a real issue. I think it's, in my opinion, kind of overstated in the sense that some of the nonquantifiable benefits of, rooftop distributed net metered solar are not taken into account. But I don't deny that the cost shifted meal and and is a valid topic of conversation and and deserves deserves scrutiny in in how we move forward, especially in relation to this beneficial electrification, which should be for everyone, not just for people who can afford it. And then, like, the last element that came up multiple times, which is not in the bill, which is this aspect of time distributed generation to storage. And that I think is a crucial part of of future. It it improves the resilience value for the homeowner, but it also, as we've seen very directly with GMP creating the virtual power plants. It it it it's valuable for peak shaving. It's valuable for load management on the grid. It minimizes distribution and transmission costs, and there's there's all sorts of benefits to having that arrangement on our grid. So it's not obviously, it's not a simple simple topic. I am in favor of lifting and heavy hearing in a more holistic manner and more comprehensive way. This bill was a way to address portability and distributed solar in a short term basis. We can do both. As you know, the PUC is going to be evaluating this, this summer. So, when I say this, I mean, the the rate adjusters. So, you know, it's potential that we'll be in a negative 6¢ adjuster environment in a few months. But maybe not. I just wanted to share with many of these five criteria that the EUC needs to consider in determining adjusters, the number and capacity of net metering systems receiving CPGs in the most recent two years. So that that's not gonna be great data because the tax grant just went away a few months ago. The extent to which the current citing adjusters are affecting citing decisions which seems pretty subjective. Whether changes to the qualifying criteria of the categories are necessary. I'm not even sure what that really means.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say that again.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Sorry. Whether changes to the qualifying criteria of the categories are necessary. By the way, this is in in PUC rule five point one hundred. The overall pace of net metering deployment, which is kind of the same as number one, and any other information deemed appropriate by the commission. That's that's the criteria they're gonna use to decide. So I I would think at the very least, we would like to have our opinions convey to the the PUC on on the negative rate adjustment ratio. Do have some draft language on incorporating battery backup adjusters into the into this bill. But we could modify it to take out the mean, that meter. It seems like there's broad consensus around about 90 meter solar in, like, in the committee, and probably the the battery connection. So we could modify the ability to take out the metering adjuster at this point, isolate it to behind the meter, or we could just do further work on this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Okay. So you that's good because you went to exactly where I was going. So what are we gonna do? That's the question. Let's okay. So there is you know, in committee, we always have the option of doing nothing, Which means that we took lunch testimony. We don't bring the film to a vote. And and we have surfaced an issue. We raised a lot of awareness. And we would probably have some committee members who would be wanting to work on this over the summer fall and bring a more comprehensive bill next January if they're here. So there's that. We do that a lot here in the legislature. As we were going around the table, I had a similar thought to Rev Morrow of wondering whether we have the support of the votes to strip out the breeze on the adjuster and move forward with the behind the meter provision. So thoughts on that?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have a question about that. Would that only be beneficial to the homeowner on the summer days when they're generating a bunch of power? I I guess I'm wondering what the impact is that absent absent battery storage.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, right now, I think the way it's calculated, it would be netted over the month. You know, you need to do some of this more time of use things to the few members brought up, which I think that's a whole another issue that we should look at with the living time of these billing. It makes a lot more sense. But, yeah, that's another separate issue. It was part

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of the bigger issue. We how charge for electricity. How do we credit for blood cell generation? That was the big issue. Yeah. So, I mean

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: heard the department say Yeah. Bear bear that if you could do at a time of use. And then the the non exported energy would be credited at some blended rate with an adjuster, but at some I think with the cost value of that kilowatt. They avoided cost or something. Having to buy

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that kilowatt often made that market. Well, anyway, I guess I guess the the main question I have is how much value if if if we just did that, if you just said, you can have your own tomato, you don't have to pay for it. What what's the what's the actual value of that? I I don't know about that. I don't know any better than this. We haven't had testimony about that. It's not gonna help. Yeah. That would be more of a. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So one thing I'm clearly hearing before we do another go around to the table is that if we did that, and then I wanna hear from everybody, we would need we would need time and testimony. It's not like it's oh, yeah. I'm I I would need to learn a lot more about it as well. But Okay.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's not like a, okay. We'll vote on that this afternoon.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I am firmly there. You know, something

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Firmly there interested in this part or firmly there

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We need a test to be convinced, but could get behind pretty quickly asking PUC to look at this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have delivered to UC a pretty hefty I know. Assignment already, but

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think they're looking for more work from us.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think they are too. Compensated. In fact, I I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: thought I heard I heard Thought I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: heard mister papers say this. When you say that, we don't have and he said you don't have anything to do. So be careful what you say on YouTube. Anybody else on the so we can we can take a look at our time and see you know, we can try to get some more folks in to talk about just that bit. Yeah.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So just as solar developed over the years, The incentives were there to get homeowners to put in Yes. Solar generation. That's why I own it. That's why many people bought it. The market is saturated. There are too many Hondas in the used car market per se, meaning that that they don't we don't need They the utility or the generation isn't necessarily needed for that type of time of generation when when it generates. So that maybe the incentive needs to push towards development of battery storage, whether it be battery storage for the person that just just wants the convenience of outage support or if they wanna pair it with solar, but maybe the two could be separated so that some of this incentive that was in the past could now be directed to the batteries and other

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: From China? Oh, sorry.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. I would I would add to that the other advantage of batteries even for people without any solar. If we have meaningful time of use billing, then people can draw power in at low cost and then power their house with it instead of high cost, the the high cost time of day. So there are. And and help shape the peak, and it has all the other benefits to the grid. So I like batteries, and I like time of use chart except the battery management

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: system controls maybe excessive. Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Although, my experience is that the batteries are smart enough to handle time of use, but not super smart, but they have a little bit of intelligence on board.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So I do have some draft language. Very good work about batteries. So I could rework the bill to take out the net metering, leave them behind the meter, and add batteries. We could just Well whether Do it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So let let's money on that or not. Let's get an updated draft. There's clearly, you know, there's clearly limited support for freezing the adjuster. So but let's let's take out let's take that out, put your thing in, bring an amended bill. And then, like I said, this has now become just a time management thing with crossover. And today is committee bill discussion day. Right? So what we're gonna have this kind of talk on all of our bills, and then and then be like, okay. What and this is a this is a vital conversation for me so I know where we're all at with time we have left.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, when we're developing solar generation, there's also some right sizing to it, meaning that you've got inverter that has a certain capacity. And so as you do you take it for optimization. If you have a five k w inverter, you put up five k w of panel. And then when you have that excess that you don't need, the concept of group net metering comes comes down. Then and, again, the the rate at which it's compensated needs to be adjusted. But I I really think that group net metering was a mistake to do away with. And we turn around and say solar for all. Well, what's solar for all? Is it that a solar for all is another variation of group net metering. But because we put it under this label, we're gonna permit it. We put it under a different label, and we don't.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We're upset

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: there. So and like I stated, I think the whole thing needs to be looked at. We need to redo it. Everything we're talking about is, in my opinion, a Band Aid. Band Aids come off after a time, and everything unravels. I truly believe that we need to have a to look at it, come up with something good with all stakeholder holders involved, and then move forward from there. And where we're at now is the junction of where we have to start. I don't think band aid after band aid is gonna work. I think we need to really look at it, and we need to come up with something that, like I said, is fair and

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: equitable. There are gonna

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: be people that like it, people that don't like it. That's the nature of what we do. But I think that we could, with everyone, come up with something that is more beneficial for the whole industry and for ratepayers to stay safe.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Thanks, everybody. That was super helpful. Next is h seven fifty three. And then, it's largely rectorized. So, similarly, we are looking at as introduced. And, again, a bill that we've taken, a lot of testimony on. I got a hard copy here this time. So and yeah. And we've come to the to the critical crossroads. So, Rectory, why don't you do you wanna kinda I do.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Give a

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: little where we're at? Yeah. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I really have appreciated the wide range of testimony we've taken, and some of it was serendipitous, like, people that happened to be in the house bringing some very personal stories to our attention. And I just you know, this bill came out of act one forty two, this larger sense of what energy assistance looks like in the state, how it needs to be better coordinated. And I know there are efforts that are going to be ongoing for that at the Department of Public Service. But so just taking in some of the input so far and how that's changed my sense about this bill and what I would like to see come of it and then to hear from you as well, it'd be really great. So one of the first pieces is, you know, this is all about changing rule 3.3. I understand that we have very detailed rules compared to other states. I appreciate that. And this section one of the bill would look at this issue of the medical certificates. So we kinda took some testimony on that from different people. We heard from Greg Faber on Friday. I'm not actually that comfortable anymore with this language that's in the as introduced. And, you know, the other thing that has come up is the water utility is not really being applicable. There that language is would need to be changed. So and

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: then

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the other piece is the heat. So currently, there's nothing about hot weather disconnections in the rule, but we have found out, listening to our utilities, that there is in practice a mechanism between the department and the utilities about high heat days and the need to not disconnect people. So my goal would be to not just live with the norm, but actually see the rule updated. I've also learned that it takes two years to do a rule making. I have learned from Carol Flynn that there are things in the rule that she would like to update and that there's an intention to update the rule. So I'm wondering if maybe instead of the PUC shall amend, we can make we can put some ideas in for when the rule making happens. Address the heat and revisit the medical certificate. That would give the time to have the experts weigh in, the medical folks, the, you know, the language may be similar to that, but maybe it could be financed a little more per month in that rule rulemaking process. So that's something I would like to amend this language to do rather than the automatic directed to have a rule making. The other part that was

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Can I stop you before So you go about the about the rule making? Yep. Somebody who knows this better than I do needs to remind me of what that language looks like. So sorry. Did you say that the PUC is already updating the rule? Well, I Or did you say that that we would say shall update rule three three hundred to consider whether

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, instead of saying shall amend the rule, it would say something more like, at the next rule 3.38 update, we would like to see. Does that happen at, like, a date certain? And I think having a date certain would be because it always is good. So we would need to discuss that, and that's something we might wanna get some testimony on. Okay. We need help from Ellen in crafting that language. We would take out water utility references as well. And then the other piece was the idea of having a performance metric around disconnections, which we learned only one other state currently has. And they have a year in with it, and it's working well. So given the novelty, given the reaction from the PC, which they did not really understand the language in the bill as it's written, and given the input from the utilities saying, you know, we would welcome having language and goals around disconnection best practices, but we think the right place for that is the IRP, the integrated resource plan that all utilities do every three years on a staggered basis. So I would like to spend some time because we have, you know, a lot of investment in best practices that's happened in our state. You know, the Department of Public Service has been looking at this over the years. We have, you know, an evaluation of of the biggest one in the state, Green Mountain Powers, with what's currently in place, what best practices are, and some suggestions. As a result of that, some of the suggestions have been taken up. That's good. And there's more that could be done. I think that this could give us a good place to start in terms of some language around disconnection goals and best practices in the IRP. So I would be willing to spend some time on that. I don't know how long that would take with the timeline that we have, but I think that would be a good first step. Yeah, and that's so And, that's kinda where I am. I don't know how others feel. I do think that the totality of risk right now around rate pressures is real. We've been hearing it on all sorts of levels. And so I think it's really important to think about what happens to the most vulnerable electricity customer, especially when we have goals around electrification, and a bigger portion of your household spending will be going towards your electric bill. And so I think it's important for us to to have, you know, some progress on this front. And I think that from what I've heard, these steps could be helpful. I don't know how others That's right. Been hearing and thinking on this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're about to find out. Let's go around. Well, I

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: think three point three hundred out of it just remained the way it it was revised in 2024. The prior date of that was 2006, I believe, was what we referred to. So every eighteen years. But we heard from some of the witnesses that the utilities remain revenue neutral. So what doesn't get paid by people who use it get paid by others. And I personally have been involved with my career in recording shutoffs when they were not able to shut people off manually where the meter actually had to be pulled and isolate. And what I worry about is even with the current system, if people get behind in the wintertime, they can't be disconnected till March. They have a very high bill to catch up on and to allow them to continue for whatever reason. Medical is one thing for thirty days, but nonmedical for ninety days because if you go another ninety days, that careers make a double, they will never catch up. Mountain Power has a assistance plan that's available to people who are signed up automatically if they participate in some plans, some public assistance, they they said Li eat. Li I or whatever. But what about those people who don't participate that are paying the full full retail? I think that I just if concerned about getting too far behind, use up their two write offs, two lifetime write offs. I think the utilities do well at managing their their shutoffs accordingly. And if it's with any assistance program, there's always gonna be the people who know the rules better and take advantage of of stretching them out with their grad interest. Like, they know they can get a doctor's excuse. I can't even get into my doctor in thirty days, so I don't know how many people whether it's just a phone call or somebody writes something about their budget. I think the utilities do well at managing the their current ability to recover the revenue they're doing.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So just making sure I heard you correctly. So if we strip the bill back to ask the PUC to amend Rule 3.3 to consider medical notes and hot weather disconnects, you would still not support it?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: If it was only a recommendation to review 3 dot 300, yes. But if it was a requirement, no.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Who's next?

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yes. I

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Testimony, I believe that the utilities do not want to disconnect somebody. I I believe that. I don't think anybody wants to take power away from someone. Flip side to that is

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: they do a disconnect. Other people are gonna have to pay for that. That I have a problem with.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So as the bill is written, I can't support it. If we roll it back to the PUC amending the rule, putting in what's already

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: in practice from what we've heard, I I don't have a problem with that. I would support that, but I can't support any other piece of the bill.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I thought representative choice valuation was aligned with mine. I would I thought the the testimony by a number of the utilities that disconnects actually haven't gone up over the last decade or so. It was compelling. I was under the impression that disconnects were going up actually very dramatically as rates went up and we're coming out of COVID and all that sort of things. That doesn't appear to be the case. And I do agree that the utilities work quite, especially the smaller ones work quite well with their customers to keep them powered up. It's to everyone's benefit to avoid disconnections. So I was appreciative of a lot of that testimony. Yeah. And I thought that was good for us as a committee to understand that. I think the heating issue is gonna become more and more of an issue as we go forward, and that hasn't really been incorporated in the past consideration so much. So I would like to see that addressed in the rules going forward. It's giving degree days. You're talking

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: about high heat situations? Yeah. Yeah.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I mean, we've seen it when there's been heat waves in other parts of the country or in the world. You know, the wet bulb temperature goes over a certain number and people start dying pretty quickly. So that is a legitimate concern that we need to address going forward.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just thinking about that, I I remember when I was in in the weatherization in Burlington, there was one summer when there was a high heat situation and people were dying and all of a sudden, I think it's in August, all of a sudden, Department of Energy came out with a plan to incentivize, to allow weatherization agencies to put in air conditioning in people's house. I think Chicago saw a lot of people in the late nineties. So I I guess my my impression overall is that we haven't done this or disconnect for all the reasons that it's an expense for them. It's a hassle. And they're also so my human love might not wanna do that if they can avoid it. So I I I guess I would come down I I I guess it would not support the bill as it is. I would come down and be on the side of a recommendation for some items to be addressed the next three point 300, you update. And I I was looking for the previous update. I realized it was 2006 until Rafael mentioned that. So maybe we should need to give them a date of service at some point there to to give another update of it and pick considerations of extreme heat and and any other matters that seem appropriate to be part of the update process, even the medical provider issue. Alright.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Perhaps Sibilia?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would I support updating the rule. I'm sensitive to the time that it has been updated to 2024. I would not support passing something with a recommendation. I would suggest maybe if we were just gonna recommend, you know, that they look at these things. And if we wanted to actually pass something that said you shall with the rule, I mean, maybe putting something date certain, I would suggest giving them some time. I, you know, I I don't know what we a letter might do it. You know, I mean, it's so the police see my sense of this, they really appreciate it when we give them things to do and tell them things to do. So if we were to send them a suggestion, that might be interesting to see how they handle that. So let's see here. So that was a yes. Eat. I heard. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, I think I got it. So now okay. Now I'm gonna try to summarize. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. Yep. Go. You

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: know, I'm interested in a few things that I don't know. One is and it feels like they're off the top of my head, right, three categories of people who get disconnected. There are people who just run out of money and can't afford it. There are people who are free looking, and there are people well, I guess the first category to be more specific. People who have, like, a one time financial emergency in their lives. They have a medical thing, they have a car that falls apart, whatever it is, and they need all their cash for that, and so they go a few months without, they get a disconnection notice. Those feel really comfortable. The people who are just living in a house, they can't afford the mortgage and the bills and everything else. And then there are probably some just freeloaders who could totally afford it, don't feel like paying the bill because they know what we And the people in the you know, the like, I'd also be interested in knowing what happens to people when they get disconnected. You know, how many of those people end up moving out? How many of those are res or how many people lose their homes because they can't pay the utility bills? All all these things. You know, what's happens to the. This is all slightly larger questions than our dressing area. It's a it's a bigger bigger scope. But it you know? And and I asked them specifically because, you know, someone's just freeloading, then pull the plug. I don't care if it's hot. Right? Like, they can pay the bills and just choose not to. That's their choice. If they can't afford it and it's hot, one would like to protect people from dying from heat injuries. But I also wonder about, the way it's structured now, there's a whole cold season when you don't disconnect people. With the hot, we're talking about a day at a time, heat emergency is declared and so forth. It seems difficult to administer. On the other hand, if you have a whole hot season, you can't and a whole cold season, then that's what Reverend Howland said, you're disconnecting everyone in one week of the spring and one week of the fall. That's why it would be a disaster. Relative to 3.1001. K. I think I would land on the side of asking the PC to look in to revising it. And to your point, maybe that doesn't need to go.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Can committees do a memorandum?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. So yeah. We can. That

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's a wrap.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Actually, one one other thing is I was concerned about. Mean, that was that was the speed at which a disconnect can happen. As we heard from GMP, it it it was it was pretty quick. So a bill a bill a bill is issued, twenty seven days later, it's due. And five days after that, they get a duplicate or disconnect notice, and fifteen days after that, they get disconnected. That seemed pretty pretty quick. And that, you know, the rule isn't all that abundantly clear about exactly what what the what the time stamp has to be so that's a good thing to do. Doesn't the rule set days? It doesn't set days per se it says within forty days or something or other it's it's I'd have to look at it again, but it's it's it's not as as as clear as what's it like about what the requirements are.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: But it also has a a minimum amount of you have to be up to a $100 now before they'll even commence to shut you off. And I got a notice in December because my credit card got scalped. So I was in I was in nonpayment. And so I called them to alert them that I was awaiting a new credit card to pay them. And they said, well, which used to be 50. Now it's 100 now. So it it may be a couple of months before they're behind, you know, over 100 or whatever, and I don't know how close, but it was thirty days after billing, or twenty seven days after billing, then five days after that because the three dot three hundred says they have to be thirty or thirty one days after bill after the date the bill was prepared, not the date the meter was read. So and then they had the five days and then another twenty or forty days. So it is almost two I think

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it was only fifteen days. Right.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, fifteen days after the After the disconnect notice. After the disconnect notice, which can't be issued until thirty four days after the billing day. Oh, alright. Well, anyway So yes. So the yes. It's complicated.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But Anyway, we we don't need to go into detail. The point the point is I would ask as part of the revising of the $3.3100 to look at that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So my thoughts. So I you know, I've I've brought this up a lot of times in committee, but in general and R. Sibilia knows this probably better than anybody. Writing a letter accomplishes nothing, in my opinion. So, the legislature has high turnover. It's the end of the biennium. There is no timeline by which PUC needs to return to the rule. And so I I just think it would be very easy for that letter to drift off into the stratosphere and be forgotten by everybody. So if we if we care about these issues enough as a committee to do anything about it, then I would propose, I I guess, that we strip this bill way back. Section, I think I heard interest in having the oh, and also, I I also don't see too much teeth or much value in passing a bill that just says that PUC may look at the rule. It's like that's same as writing a letter. I I guess I would ask if we care if we care about this, These remaining pieces, my thought would be that we take a look at something that would probably be a pretty comprehensively revised bill that would you know, direct the PUC to update rule three point three hundred within some kind of reasonable timeframe, not tomorrow, to look at and then we could we could go through rule three point three hundred and say, you know, to look at physician certificate, whether, you know, heat heat related, and if we and if we think it's important to the timeline and give them time to to do that. So, that's that's kinda where I am.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I just wanna push back on, letters being ineffective. Right? They do not concur. I don't think that they are always effective. I think they are not you're not able to hold folks accountable to them. But I do have experience, in particular with PUC, with writing letters that were actually quite effective, and I've seen that happen to other committees. There is no way to ensure that what we write will be taken up. So to that point, I would agree. We keep all focusing out to letters.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And that's what I'm getting to, the accountability piece. It's like Yes.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: know, we adjourn in May and we all go home and, you know Yeah. That's that. And you hope that somebody remembers to take that up and, you know, bring them in in January and ask where that's at. And So I I don't know. I mean, to me, it's just

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I could certainly get on board with an extended timeline.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. To do that. Because they did just, you know, as they did just do it in '2 in 2024. And I I'm sorry. I know I asked you this, Torre or anybody in the committee. I can't remember. When do rules get updated? Like, what you know, it's not like they have right? Like, does this

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think you're seeking update. But

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: they can they have a lot

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: they have a pretty broad authority.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But it's

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: not like they sunset. Right? Like, you you update the rule, and then it it stays there until I wish Maria were here. It stays there until either we we require that the rule be updated or circumstances change enough so that they undertake an update on their own. Right. That's the part I'm on. That's where I'm sort of a little bit uncomfortable with the latter idea. It's like, well, we think this is important. Let's, you know, ask them to do it and give them time to do it. Guess I'd rather

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: do a letter than nothing.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. Yes. So in order

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: of And I'm not I don't I don't know how urgent it is to ask them to do

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: rule making.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. I don't know. I don't know either because as Rutland pointed out, you know, it I mean, we it it was definitely a head turner for me to hear, you know, very alarming disconnection stats, you know, at the start of the session, And then hear testimony from all of our utilities and from other folks that disconnections are, you know, over ten years going down. That they're definitely but I'm worried about the hot the the hot weather thing.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Mhmm. So Mhmm. Theory, they're already doing those two things

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that we're asking to the men with all. Correct? So they're already doing.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Already in practice between the department and the utilities. So, I mean, I don't I don't wanna, quote unquote, beat a dead horse. If if it's already being done in in practice, give them the time to amend the rule when it comes up, I guess. I I don't know if forcing them to change the rule now is worth the the effort.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would also note that those who are asking for this right now will not forget if, in fact, we were to send a letter. And they will remind other legislators, you know, hey. They sent you a letter a year ago or two years ago and now it happened. You know, we've got a problem.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I Yeah. I know you guys know my I have a a strong bias on this that Yeah. Letters and intent and well, know, they're already doing this in practice, so why should we so why should we do anything? I I get super skeptical about that. Yeah. And you guys have heard me express that opinion in committee before. So it's like if we we want something to happen, we we we should take steps to ensure that

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it happens. I agree. If this is I don't have urge.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But the other question is transparency and data reporting. So I still I know that the utilities are all doing monthly updates if you see on disconnections, But I don't know where that rolls up into some annual report that we see. So I I personally wanna have, like, another conversation with someone from the department because it's also possible that some of this could get captured in the overall coordination of energy assistance that's going to be going. And then and then in that case, it would really be about data and transparency for us. Makes sense. So that's another avenue for

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: for reporting.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. So the two paths I see for this are significantly revised language or a letter. Right? Did I those are our that's the fork we're at for that. Okay. So, okay, so I, you know, like I said earlier, I think we all need we need to hear about all the bills and then, you know, that's a today thing and then figure out we're gonna have to circle back. Right? Okay. So we have we have next we have net metering conversation concluded. I took notes. We have seven fifty three conversation, like, paused. And then later today this is a really helpful day for me. Later today, we have similar discussion about h seven eighteen. And then we have more testimony on data centers seven twenty seven with a big talk about that

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: bill scheduled

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: later this week. And then we have f y 27 budget also today. And I did I revised the letter according to our committee discussion yesterday, and I sent it out to everybody. I didn't remember to track changes. I tried to flag the biggest things and it changed. Then we have a bill on the floor today. Yeah. So, big

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: you round up some of the capital singers to be back up singers? I want walk on music too, by the way.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Certainly. Yeah. Carry on. Alrighty. So I think is that good? I'm wondering, is there anything else I need to look forward to doing the budget letter? We're having our big talks about all the bills.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We've got a

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: bill on the floor. Tomorrow, we are not in committee in the morning because we have all the adjutant general and state college trustee stuff. Okay. Great. I think we can go offline.