Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Perfect. We're

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: live. Alright. Welcome, everybody. It's, Wednesday, February 25, and it's the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. I'm rep Kathleen James from the Bennington Floor District.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Then we pick Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rowland four.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And joining us today.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: I'm Steven Olsen. I'm president of Board of Washington.

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Great. Gabriel Malino with Dallas Rockford Yard. Jeremy

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Perry from New Fastener Group. Great. TJ Fuller, public service department.

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: From our public power supply authority.

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Andrea Cohen from our electric cooperative group.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Greg Bailey with DC.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Zoe, intern first, Rebecca White. Candice Morgan from our power. Lisa Morris from our electric column. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So we are here to spend a couple hours taking testimony on H seven sixteen, an act relating to net metering formula. And representative Morrow has revised the bill and it is posted in the bill folder. Why don't we all just take a quick look and have Ralph Morrow walk us through his changes? So that is in page seven sixteen, drafts, implements, and legal documents. And it's draft 1.1 dated February 23. Alright. Chris, why don't

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: you tell

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: us about your changes?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Hey. Section one change. Copying the negative rate adjuster, which is adding some language for the EU to see to consider in their biannual rate considerations. Section two is unchanged. Section three is, you know, payment of our discussions about tying incentives for battery storage to better, utilize distributed solar systems. And so this was designed to incentivize battery systems being tied to net metering solar systems. Okay, so looking at what's new,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the new language is additional considerations for the PUC to take into account when they're looking at net metering compensation rates. And there's a suggested new adjuster or category for battery. And then the freeze is gone, but the behind the meter language remains the same, right? Correct. Okay. All right, so we're going get feedback on this new language from our witnesses this morning. So I believe first up is Mr. Favor from the EUC.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Morning, madam chair, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Greg Favor with PUC. Here to speak about H716 this morning. So we don't support this bill. It would be hard for us to imagine, a bill that would more effectively transfer money from low and moderate income rate payers to for profit companies and wealthier rate payers. So having said that, I'll go through the parts of the bill that are problematic. Beginning on page one, let's see. Section d one, has us considering the presence of or absence of federal tax credit. That's something we would already do. We already factor in the cost of systems, and tax credits would affect the costs. So we already look at that sort of thing. The second part, though, is a little problematic. The impact on jobs in Vermont. We don't look at electric rates as an economic development fund. If this committee wants to do something about creating jobs in certain sector of the economy, That should be an economic development bill, with broad based taxes to support that. It shouldn't be done through electric rates. Rest of these things, we're we're already looking at that in our biennial reviews. If you move on to page two, it's, part two here. This part

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: this is again, this is

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: a little confusing. This says explicitly there shall be no adjuster on behind the meter consumption. But then if you go down to line one of part three, it says create an adjuster for behind the meter consumption batteries. We we can't do both. And when you get you get to part three, this is the really this this part is really hard to understand. I'm not sure where this goal of 50 megawatts per year of new energy storage came from. It it seems to us to be an unrealistic goal, and there's no end date either. This would be 50 megawatts a year of new, solar storage per net meter devices for forever. We don't think that's realistic. It would involve creating massive incentives to do that. That and that would exacerbate the cost shift that I talked about earlier from low income low income and moderate ratepayers to wealthier ratepayers and for profit companies. So, no, we don't support this. I also had a question about this last part on lines eleven and twelve where it talks about third party virtual power plant providers. There's no definition of that. I don't know what that is. So, no, we don't we don't support this. I don't. Happy to answer any questions.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Setting aside some of the technical concerns that you raised, can you comment on the general concept of not charging consumers for power they generate behind the meter and use behind the meter that never hits the grid?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Comment on it?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I mean, in general, is that

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You could certainly do that.

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

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: One way to do it would be to eliminate any compensation for excess generation that would incentivize people to to use their power behind the meter and store it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: There's nothing sort of unintended consequences are inherently negative about people generate juice on the roof. They use it in their house. Never hits the grid. They don't get charged for that. Not inherently,

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: but it depends how you set up the incentive system Yeah. To do so. Great. The way this is written, I don't know if that is that would be a Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How would you write it?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: How would I write it? I wouldn't have a bill at all. I would allow us to go through a biannual process like we normally do. I've I've commented on that before. Why not let us do our process, see where the rates come out? And if there's something we're missing, something specific, please tell us. But, this this body, the legislature has tried to set rates in the past. It hasn't worked out well, But you're certainly you can do that. You have the authority to do that. But you decided two years back just to put this in our hands because we have necessary expertise to do that. So I would I would not do this, Bill, at all.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess what I meant was and then maybe I don't know if Morrow's questions. I guess what I meant was, if there's nothing in inherently, you know, dangerous about incentivizing people to, you know You

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: could certainly

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: have to use, then that would that would be a PUC rule making process that we would

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Not a rule making process. Again, it's a biennial audit

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

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Of the rates.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And so I guess what I'm asking is what would you need from us in order for the PUC when it considers the rates to dive into that topic more thoroughly or or see some progress here.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We don't need anything. We would consider that already. People could bring those concerns to the audit.

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

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And we would consider those.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But it hasn't been the result in the past. Right? So

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, I think there has been a lot of storage. And you you'll you'll hear from the utilities later on that they have programs themselves which encourage storage and allow them to control that. That's a much better approach.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead, R. K.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So right now, people generating behind the meter and using behind the meter are charged per kilowatt hour.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, the there's a blended rate. Yeah. And it has adjusters in it. Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So I think this is a slightly separate issue from storage, which is, you know, I can I can look at my app now and see how much my panels are producing and how much is going into the house and how much is going into the grid? Mhmm. And, I think what we're trying to get at is I'm gonna use my favorite example, I apologize for people who've heard that. If I were to grow tomatoes in my garden, eat and pick one and take it into my kitchen and slice it and eat it, I would be irritated if someone charged me for doing it. And it feels like we are growing electrons on our roofs, we are using them in our kitchen, and we are being charged for doing that. And we are trying to figure out a way to avoid that, just that little part of the problem. And that could include storage or it could not include storage either way. But it's sort of a conceptual question of behind the meter generation and behind the meter use. What's the fair way to treat that?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Through the adjusters we put on blended residential rate. But but that we already have in place, that's the fair way to do it. I mean, you may not think it's fair. That's the way we look at it. That that those are our mechanisms to control that and try to make it fair.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: No questions. K.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And if and I think I'm just trying to get at I I understand the logic of the PUC setting the rates. I'm not I'm not arguing that. I I think what I'm trying to find my way around is if you see engaging in that expert process and coming up with the result in the behind the meter category, it doesn't feel fair. And so we're asking, do you see any solution there besides us just saying, gosh. I wish that would be different. I mean,

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: you could certainly ask us to consider that in any biennial audit.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's kind of what I was asking earlier. I'm definitely not trying to be combative. It's like, well, what how do try to see some progress in a very specific area that we've identified? So asking you to consider it in your next review would be a way.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah, and we consider it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, thanks. Oh, I'm sorry. Doctor.

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Would it be fair to say that it's using the rates in place now, negative 4¢, if the behind the meter negative adjuster didn't apply to electricity that was consumed behind the meter, then the negative adjuster for the exporter energy would go up.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Probably. But there's other mechanisms we'd like to use as well. You could eliminate all the consumption or the compensation for excess generation. And then anything behind the meter would be offsetting full retail rates. Does it not now? With the adjusters. I mean, you you you have to add the adjusters in.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So you just wouldn't get any compensation for anything excess?

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: There's no That's

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: one way to encourage behind the meter, consumption and storage because you wouldn't get anything for access. So why produce it?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Let's take a look. So these are new systems going forward. All these systems that exist today, they grandfathered.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Again, it's one way to address that problem.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have any more questions for mister? Greg, thank you for being here.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yep. Thank you. Alrighty.

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

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Touch support.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You just gonna share your screen?

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: I'm gonna try.

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

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Okay. Let's see. Let's put this see if I can put it on a slideshow. Okay. My name is Steve Knowleson. I'm president of the board of Washington Electric Cooperative. I spoke with you about a week and a half ago on the same subject. As you'll recall, the board of an electric co op, which is a public power utility, is in effect a regulatory body. We act on behalf of our member owners to make sure they get equitable attention, equitable benefits from the investments they put into the co op that they own. In effect, they are our investors. I'm speaking on behalf of them. Mr. Faber has set up the challenges, I think, quite fairly adequately. So I think my testimony could be brief. I'm just reiterating what the three questions are that came in the revised bill. First was to consider the externalities of net metering to see a third. Should be adjusters to the regulatory process for those. And secondly, just to eliminate the negative adjuster off behind the meter consumption. And third issue was to create a new adjuster and then get to these one by ones. I should probably say at the beginning that I largely do not support this bill for the same reasons I spoke of a week and a half when I was here. Concerning the external effects, first of all, the loss of the federal credits, obviously that's important to the economics of net metering, but rate payers are also stressed as almost all utilities are experiencing rising costs. So any further subsidization of need going to offset lack of state and federal support is basically a further ratepayer expense. That does not seem fair to us. Federal actions have also hampered utilities in procuring renewable energy for their customers. So utilities themselves are under an economic bind to what they're supposed to be doing. All the other effects listed in the revised bill are already included for consideration by the PUC by any of the process. So I don't think there's anything I can add to Mr. Faber's discussion at that point. One point I'd like to add with regard to the idea that net metering is going to be beneficial to the renewability of Vermont's portfolio. The renewable energy standard in Vermont, which has been passed by the legislature, it requires utilities to achieve pretty stringent renewability measures. And this includes in state generation within a fairly short period, four years. While this didn't happen in our territory, I read about in Vermont Digger about the array model that's being proposed to be built. It's a five megawatt array, and it's of some concern to people. And then the article in Vermont Digger said that this array would support 1,500 homes. That's over 1,500 homes. So that's an equivalent way of saying you could replace this with 1,500 rooftop solar systems. Well, that in itself I mean, 1,500 is 500 more than Washington Electric already has on its system, with 10% of its members being that meter. Build out such an array in four years, you'd have to be installing one array per day, now until four years until the utility was required to have to be able to meet the renewables standard. So a lot of utilities are really under a lot of pressure to get things done to be able to meet the law set by the legislature. And net metering is just not a particularly appropriate. It's certainly not cheaper and not faster by any means. So the utility's not under the gun to actually meet the provisions of renewable energy standard. This slide I've got from a It's a summary slide to give us an idea of what's driving costs in rates today? And I got this from a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Bramble Group analysis paper. It's not numerical, but it does indicate that utility wind and solar basically lower the cost of electricity. This is based on analysis all around the country, so Vermont may be different, but basically utility, wind, and solar lower the cost of electricity. It stated that state renewable portfolio policies might raise it to some extent, but I'm a researcher, I sort of dived into this a little bit more. I've come to further articles which show that actually state renewable policies do not, on their own, the fact that you have a renewable energy standard or renewable policy portfolio, they do not in themselves raise the cost of electricity. It's how you implement them that might raise the cost of electricity. In every study I've seen, net metered solar is a big factor in raising the cost of electricity for all ratepayers. So I wanna just leave that cost factor as as one of the drivers for why this part one of the of this bill that did not resonate with with me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could we stop sorry. Could you just go back for a sec? Sure. To the slide? To the slide. Yeah. Slide. Or not move on, I guess. That's a really that's

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: really interesting slide, and it it raises a question I wanted to ask you about your previous slide, but you don't need

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: to go back there,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: which is that I I think as a committee, what we're trying to to grapple with is is there any low barrier for low hanging fruit way to try to find some path forward that makes it slightly less onerous or slightly more attractive for homeowners to put solar on their rooftops. Because we have taken testimony and it's been interesting to learn that the utility scale solar is, you know, cheaper and drives greater savings, but we see siding. I think we're seeing a lot of siding barriers with that. So it's like, that's the way to do it money wise, but nobody wants to put it anywhere. And so I I keep then thinking about, well, nobody nobody cares if I put an array on my garage. But it's become financially impossible for anybody, as as we mentioned earlier, you know, you have to be now now you have to be able to afford to do that in a way that wasn't previously the case. And I'm I'm really sensitive to the argument that we shouldn't be asking, you know, rate payers to cover huge cost shifts. If they're very small incremental cost shifts that just help it pencil out for more people, wouldn't just the behind the meter wouldn't just that small step be low barrier? And so I'm so that's where I'm curious about the last whether we couldn't expand the geographic breadth and the residential uptake on that for a much smaller cost cost shift. So I'm just curious this that that's a really cool slide, I think. So I I was just curious to get your thoughts on that.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: It's a great question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Seems like we've abandoned everything else except for just this one idea.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: It's a great question. If I had the answer, would be sure to tell you. Okay. But it is, I think in our previous meeting, I think Ms. Morgan from GMP offered the way forward, which is if you feel this is an important path to go down, then funds should be funding from the state to progressive income taxes for this process. Because I think as the previous speaker, Mr. Chamber said, this is not really an issue of energy reliability, efficiency, and cost that utilities are required, that regulated utilities are required to adhere to. So if there are issues beyond that, so if you could articulate, I'm speaking generally, not to you.

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: But if

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: No. That's can articulate, you know, what the benefits of having small scale solar are, that would be a path forward for us. There's a group that could say, here's why this is really worth doing. My take is that net metering was intended to develop the jumpstart it. And thanks to the jumpstart utility scale solar, it's cheap, which is great. That's why the legislature undertook this thirty years ago. And it's to its credit. Okay. But no jumpstart lasts forever, in my opinion. Should it last forever? I mean, times change, things work out, and people evolve. So but I admit that it's a good question. I and I've thought about it since since our last meeting. But I don't have I don't have an obvious answer for you at this time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks. All of them. Right. We need

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: to need to build find a way to express the value in that. And then fact that that we really express it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And I I wasn't laughing rudely about the income tax. I voted for the I voted for it more than once, but I think other people are flipping in line for those revenues.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Okay. Well, as for the behind the meter consumption adjuster, I mean, one could always do that. You can have a separate adjuster for behind the meter power and export power. You can argue that it's already been done to this committee that a separate adjuster on behind the meter power could increase the value of the array to the owner. In other words, you could get behind the meter compensation effectively at the retail rate if you used all the power that you produced on-site. And if paired with a local battery, could probably even get additional benefit from time of use rates. In other words, you program your battery to discharge when power is expensive. The less power that's exported to the grid, the reduction of cost shift to ratepayer. However, I would argue that even if the adjusters of the power consumed behind the meter is eliminated, the PC still has to have the flexibility of setting the overall adjusters, the exported power, protect the ratepayer. So I give as an example here, it's just not an analysis, but now the adjusters for all power. And let's just assume that 80% is exported. That's a typical amount for our rate. Between 20% to 30% is consumed behind the array, even though we've got these things power mostly car chargers at the present time. No one seems to want to charge their car at noon in their work. So you could certainly conceive of an adjuster of zero sense from behind the meter, and then you would increase the adjuster to make it more negative for power that's exported. In other words, you still have the same motivation, but here you'd still be paying the same amount, but should be motivated to not export your power. This is equivalent to what's called net billing as opposed to net energy metering, which is what Vermont typically has. It's followed by a number of states have this. New Hampshire, I looked up a New Hampshire electric cooperative bill. Their retail rate is $0.22 and they have got a credit for exporting power of $0.13 So, in effect, as Mr. Fable was saying, you could do an adjustment of all this to essentially arrive at a situation where the next you could export power, but it would be credited at less than certainly less than retail rates. And it's possible it's been done. I would be as loath to actually recommend putting this in legal words at this time. Think it would be a good topic for discussion. Going through rate design processes around the boardroom is a very, very complicated process and it should not be done lightly. Ideas can come up on the table, talked about, But actually deciding on a rate design is a pretty important process. It kind of signals a lot of the values that you have. And so, doing it right is important. I think that's why suggesting it to the PUC, as you suggested, was a possibility. And it's well within their I think they could consider it. I hesitate to put it myself. Cannot recommend putting it in legal language now until it's really been examined. As for the third one, have to say, I didn't really understand. When I read the bill, I didn't quite understand what it was getting at. I got the impression that it was an attempt to to have an extra credit for solar arrays that would deliver power to a battery owned by someone else. And I'm not sure I really grasped the full nuances of the idea. But again, would argue that that would be something that would put into legal language at this point. Basically my conclusion is that as much as we might like small scale net metering systems are no longer as relevant to solving the state's affordable energy and environmental challenges. People net me primarily because it indeed saves money. It does that. A certain number of years, you've paid off your investment in it through reduced rates. It will save you money on your electric bills. But it does so at the expense of the ratepayer. Now just to echo your point, Jim, residential systems serving a single home or local group can still be of interest to many. And there could be adjuster price structures in the existing process that could greater encourage the local consumption of electricity. I don't think anybody in the children would complain if someone put up a solar array at their house, put a battery there, and used all the power that they generated at their house. As long as it's connected with grid safely, still a free country. You should be free to generate and use your own power. It's exporting the power that is causing the challenge, the problems that you hear about. And it's not really evident to me that it's, should we proceed down that line, that the electric rate payers remain the appropriate donor to support the incentivization of continuing net metering program as it exists now. With these comments, I would just say I largely don't support the bill as written, but I agree that it raises some interesting ideas.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. Do we have questions for Mr. Owens? Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: A quick one on that last point. You say exporting is the problem. The whole premise behind virtual power plants is that you're exporting to benefit of the ratepayers, the grid stability, load management, all that sort of thing, of peak shaving. And the whole premise behind these programs, which from what I hear, been very successful, is that you're using exportive

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: power to

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: the benefit of the system. Is that accurate?

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: In a way. If you export power when the power is needed, then it could be a benefit.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right. That's what we're talking about.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Yeah. Current net metering does not export power when it's needed.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, but with this number three, and when we're talking about adding batteries to the system, the whole premise with the BPPs. Right? So it's exported at peak times under control of utilities

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: For common benefit. Mhmm. Exactly. So so exporting can be beneficial under certain circumstances. Of course. Oh, okay. Now it sounded like you were saying exporting was Exporting. Problematic.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Under the present net metering law, is, in my opinion, and it definitely leads to cost shift to other rate payers. Clearly, a future system in which we have, if we have batteries, you have the possibility of, and it doesn't require net meter power, but you have the ability to control when power is flowing on the grid and when it's not. And so you can more optimally use the equipment of the grid. Ideally, can minimize and you can reduce the cost of maintaining that grid and use it more efficiently. I agree that all these are asked that utilities will be pursuing over the next decades. It's The problem is with the current debt being drained all of that was the the idea that you can have a People bring power on gridding. Utilities are very conscious to dispatching power as needed, and that dispatching power is not. Again, current net metering laws not extinguish really because of the account for that need.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I noticed the example you gave in New Hampshire, the retail rate was 22¢. What they're paying for net metered power is 13¢, so a negative adjuster of 9¢. So I did a quick search. It looks like the wholesale cost of power in New Hampshire is 12.6¢. So the exported price is essentially wholesale. And while I'm not advocating this, is it true that if we were paying wholesale for exported power, that would eliminate the cost shift?

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Representative, I'm probably not the best person to ask.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: About that. Are you the best person in the room?

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: I think that I would actually probably defer to Mr. Favor, who's done this, the idea is, it seems reasonable to me that if you export power and are compensated at a wholesale rate, or whatever the wholesale rate is at the time it's exporting, because as you know, if you export power on a day, the wholesale rate at that time is probably not gonna be between $0.12 because there's a glut power, in fact. As we found in Shia the region, there's overabundance of solar power, cost of electricity can actually be negative. In other words, you actually have to pay to put power on the grid. I don't know. It sounds as difficult to me as milk pricing, but I just don't think it does depend on when you are on the grid. But I understand your question. I think that the general answer is is yes. If net meters got compensated at the wholesale rate at the time, that would be a reasonable approach to to ask you some of the. Thank you. But I I think it's premature for him to put him out in general.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks, mister Nolan. Andrea?

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Lisa's gonna join at the same time. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. Good

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: morning. For the record, Andrea Cohen with Bramheim Electric Cooperative. With me is Lisa Morris, our subject matter expert who spoke to the committee what was it? Last week? Yeah. And she'll give the bulk of the testimony, and she's the one that will answer the hard questions, which this is what she lives and breathes every day. But I did just want to offer a few quick comments for the record just to share that we are opposed to this bill. We regret to inform you we are opposed to this bill. These issues as the questions that are being asked, it's really complicated and really requires a very thorough analysis and thoughtful analysis. That's why you gave this to the PUC As you've been hearing, of course you can give them some direction, but we've been trying to come up with an analogy about tomatoes and it's not working because it's so much more complicated than you know, today, if you needed your tomatoes, you'd get maybe 4% of what you need. Right? As Lisa's chart showed you last time about usage and when you're generating, when you need. So it's not as simple as I want tomato, I have tomatoes. It's really a complicated system. Maybe you've come up with an analogy while you're sitting here that you cannot bring your comments. The we read this draft, we're just seeing a lot more questions than answers. So, again, that's why we're not supportive of the bill. I do want to just make one comment before I hand it to Lisa about section one. We are very opposed to the PUC considering job creation as part of setting rates. If jobs are because we're playing renewable energy, whether net metering or through the res, great, great benefit, great ancillary benefit. But to ask electric rate payers through rates to in some way, contribute to the job creation in a particular sector just really hits us very wrong. Take that across the hall. If we wanna do something for this sector, there's other ways to maybe approach it in the economic development committee as a jobs creation initiative, but we really feel like it should not be part of net metering or res or anything else, the job creation. Again, it's great if it happens, but shouldn't be the pull. And with that, sections two and three and other things Lisa will have.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: One of my roles at the co op is to implement net metering in our billing. And if I were to implement section two, I would just have a lot of questions about what specifically the language it means in terms of how we're going to build net metering. So the language that there shall be no adjuster on behind the meter consumption. But just curious, I'm not really asking you this, but is this perspective? Is this for all of our adjusters that we've implemented? Over the years, we have many different categories of sighting adjusters and timeframes. Is this only moving forward, or is this kind of looking at everything? And then the way that it's written, it seems to be both positive and negative adjusters. It doesn't, you know, speak to simply negative. So could you talk a little

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: bit more about the perspective versus you just mentioned that you have many different and Mhmm. Talk about that a little bit more?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Under the current net metering structure, we have been implementing it for applications starting on 01/01/2017. Initially, most of the adjusters were positive, meaning that if you generated a kilowatt hour, you got maybe 3 or 4¢ as a credit for those kilowatt hours. And then at a certain point, somewhere around 2020, 2021, some of them became zero, and so there was no adjuster in either direction. And then at a certain point, they became a negative adjuster. So we're actually charging 1¢, 2¢, currently 4¢ for the typical net metering system. And so there are adjusters that flow in both directions, and the way that it has typically worked for the net metering rules is you get the deal that you signed up for when you signed up for it, and that new changes that go into effect are just for new applicants, and so they don't change everybody else. So, just the way that this language is written to me is pretty unclear as far as what that means for everybody who has already signed up for NetEaring in the past.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I wasn't ever envisioning that it would be retroactive. Mhmm. But that that's just me.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Okay. Thanks. And then for the behind the meter language, so it means electricity is used or stored on-site without first passing through the retail electricity provider's electric meter, otherwise reaching the grid. So the way that we currently do net metering is it's a monthly netting. And so we're looking at your end of the meter reading, we're looking at your beginning of the meter reading, and we're either charging you or we're crediting you appropriately. This language seems to me to be looking at it more maybe on an hourly timeframe. And so it's those kilowatt hours. It's only the kilowatt hours that are used on-site and not the kilowatt hours that are being delivered to the grid for that hourly basis. So this would be, in my opinion, a completely new billing setup that we would be implementing is looking at that on an hourly basis rather than a monthly basis, which I I think we that we could do it. I don't know that you could actually do this statewide because you would need automated metering infrastructure to be able to know what those hourly readings are. Some utilities are just doing, again, that end of the month, beginning of the month. They don't have that data to be able to implement this kind of billing scheme. Then to go back to the tomato analogy, one of the points that we brought up last time is that a lot of our fixed costs are actually in our energy rates. So I mean, I love a summer tomato. We have about 25 garden beds at our house. It's one of the wonderful things about summer. But I think that net metering is very different in that it requires somebody else to build, maintain, and operate the grid in order to produce and deliver those kilowatt hours. So it becomes a little bit different if you have a battery. You can produce and store some of your own batteries. Almost nobody actually does own use with their batteries. They're still sending those kilowatt hours out onto the grid when they're generating them, and then in the event of an outage, you could be self sufficient for a period of time. Definitely not year out in the state of Vermont if you paired solar with batteries. Then just moving on to section three. Again, just to echo Mr. Faber's comments, we don't know where the 50 megawatt hours came from. We do view batteries as a grid asset, and we are investing in utility scale batteries, and we also have an incentive program for members who install batteries where we're valuing that peak shaving capacity that they provide to our system. So, it with solar from our perspective really doesn't have any additional grid benefit for us. It's really the battery that provides that value. And like I said, we do have an incentive program for that.

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: And on that, we were wondering, you know, how would that integrate with different utilities, have different incentive programs? How would a statewide incentive, you know, would we all stop doing our own? That's why this is complicated because each utility has different incentives. And frankly, we know best the value to us from those batteries. That's why we go through rate setting around coming up with our incentive, because we know if we can manage that battery three times a month and use it for peak shaving, it's worth X amount to us, and then we compensate the member that way. I don't know how we would integrate with the PUC process to provide another incentive because the incentive might be really different depending where you live and things like that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Brook Kim? Yeah. Just a

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: quick question on your battery program. Does that allow members to use the electricity in the batteries themselves, not just in an outage situation?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Absolutely. I mean, the battery is theirs. They own it in our program. And so if they choose to, they can sign up for our program where we get to use it a handful of hours a year for peak shaving, and then we offer incentives.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But otherwise They use it. Otherwise, they have access to it. So in the summer when the sun's shining, they can go charge the battery, and then at night, they can use that that power K. In their own house.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: If they could. Yep. I mean, that's that's like a self consumption setting, which most people don't do that. Yeah. But they could.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: They could. Mhmm. Okay. Just curious. Thank you. And then

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Step back.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Do you know why most people don't do that?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Because there there's really no value to doing it. I mean, you're cycling your battery more than you would otherwise. And, I mean, you're still connected to the grid, so you can get, you know, the energy that anybody would whether or not you have a battery. And so from a customer perspective, there's really not much that they're getting or less.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Were there not time of use rates in your territory?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Do have time of use rates, yeah. Test. Yeah. They nobody nobody really uses it that way to date. I'm I'd have to think about that more to think if that would be beneficial because our our peak time our peak time is is five to 9PM. So if you were discharging your battery, then, yeah, theoretically, it's what you're saying.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: People charge up during the day, discharge from five to nine, and it would make everybody happy.

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: You know, the thing is people just wanna turn the light. You know, most people are not looking to manage that. You know, they're getting food on the table, kids out there, like, you you have to be freaky. You don't really wanna manage that because the cost savings just would not

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: be Well,

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: they're they're getting power from their batteries instead of buying But

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: they bought it. Don't they buy it from the system? Mean, they're recharging their battery, they're buying it. So they're already buying it. Maybe it's crazy. Net metering people are still on the system. Right.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: I mean, if you have net metering, even if you're paired with a battery, you're still fully connected to the grid. I mean, it'll isolate from the grid and then without it.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And that's and there's a meter on the on the solar panel so they're paying for every kilowatt that they Jeff?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: They're paying the siding adjuster if they have that that current rate, if they applied at a time when there was a siting adjuster.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Can you just give me

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: an approximate cost, what it would cost to put in a battery system but tied into your solar. What what part how much that investment would

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: It's if you're doing so most people do two batteries. It's about $25,000 with the the batteries plus the installation.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And are those in the house or at least outside?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Most of them are in the house. You can install them outside, but most people install them in the home.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Because Yeah. So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: your system peak is between five and nine, and used to be system peak was midday ten to two. So intermittent generation, be it solar or wind, is shifting that peak to the evening. Correct. Is there that there's enough solar production during the day, whenever that peak occurs. I Yeah. Was assuming winter peak now, but maybe summer peak. Is there enough solar and wind generation to still continue to shift that, what I would assume to be an industrial load, to get that peak into the evening consumption, which I would consider residential?

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: Well, what we've seen over the past year is that our peaks do tend to be after the solar generation drops off, so like 7PM, 6PM, something like that. We've actually seen some in the morning, which is unprecedented, so that's a new phenomenon in Vermont, and that does have to do with the addition of the generation that's on the system, as well as some of the flexible load programs. So that shifting peaks around as well within the state. So it's all becoming less predictable, honestly. It's becoming a tougher job to be able to anticipate when those peak events are going to be. But across the board, I did look at actually the last year peaks in preparation for this, and they're they're universally after, either before the solar has started for the day or after solar has stopped producing.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Even on the cloudy and rainy days, there's some distributed generation or solar or wind that's coming on renewable, some sort of renewable that's coming on to keep that shift, or you've shifted your load management through your customers. Mhmm.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Yes. It

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: is a complicated time because also with more EVs coming on that you know, it's a it's a really that's why when we say this is complicated, we're not kidding in terms of what the value is to us.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah, but I look at getting up in the morning and taking that EV and driving to work so I'm not connected to my solar panel Right. During the day, and I'm connected when I I have to have my car at home charging. Right. Have to let that on if it's any more.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: I think that's

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: a little too slow for practical.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So

[Andrea Cohen (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: we're happy to come back or be available as you think through this. Was there anything else you wanted to share? I know we had slides, we didn't bring them today because we just had short notice on getting the language, referring back to Lisa's slides from last week, there's a lot of good information there about generation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Alright. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Good morning. Candice Morgan from Green Mountain Power. Consistent with what you've heard from other witnesses, we're also not in support of the bill in the revised language before you today. And really wanna emphasize similar to what I had shared last time that I think the biennial review process as it exists right now, is rigorous and evidence based and does a good job of pulling in the various considerations that are out there on this program, including balancing those cost pressures and what it means for the overall industry as well as external factors and market conditions and changes to pricing and all that. So, that's a process that has felt very, know, at this point, well established and should be allowed to continue as it exists, started already, right, in terms of because of the timing of of this conversation. And a lot of, like I said, they're already required to weigh a wide range of factors. I think that additionally, as you heard, and especially from the EDC, some of the other parts of the bill as drafted are, would be pretty big changes to kind of how the program is structured and what it's looking to achieve. I want to correct slightly what mister Knowles and referred back to what I had said before. My suggestion at the time last time was around a tax credit because, you know, especially if you're thinking about economic development and some of these other concerns, that's really not a place to be done through the electric customers that are paying for additional costs here. Vermont already has very progressive income tax,

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: I wasn't gonna get into the tax

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: structure, but that's a broader conversation about how we're paying for this and having it not just the electric customers who are the ones that are paying for the incentives that are out there right now. I think and so I would echo what you heard from Andrea on the economic development considerations as well, just not being the right place for that discussion. Also, as we had talked about and you've heard from other witnesses, in an increasingly renewable environment in terms of what their requirements are on utilities already, there are more cost effective ways to deploy renewable energy across the state And that is both through, you know, the ones that we are required to procure under tier two. But it can also be some of the programs that I spoke about last time and that you saw referenced in the PUCs Act 01/1942 report, which is ACRE, affordable community renewable energy program that was obviously paid for by general fund dollars, but it does provide a direct connection to income eligible customers to get kind of to an array and see some of those benefits on their bill through a reduction in what they're paying. So, I just think that, you know, if the goal is to connect more folks directly with solar, there are other ways to do that than just through the net metering program we continue to show that there is other options out there. Echo the concerns and questions that were raised too by the both Lisa and Andrea from Vermont Electric Co op on sort of what time frame would be considered in that sec the second part of the bill change around the export and use. It's a little opaque at the moment. And I also think that, you know, it's a I understand the goal and I'll certainly try to align your own usage with what you're generating and all of that as well. But it's all a little bit more complicated and everyone is not to continue the tomato metaphor, but you've got to make sure that you have what you need to keep the lights on and that might not be the same time that the solar is producing. And so it is all just quite a bit more complicated than gardening or tomato manifolders. So I'm happy to take any questions. I'm sorry for it to be so brief, but we were just kind of responding in real time to the update. So largely my testimony from the last time remains consistent here as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Any questions for campus?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm gonna have to add Pannington maybe to the root cellar to my metaphor here.

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Maybe. I mean, other thing that I was toying with it is everyone, I think, has been leading up to today. And, you know, in addition to the when you're using it, how you're storing it, all of that, you know, the compensation is also a factor. And so you're producing one tomato, but you're getting paid for two or three. Right? Just based on how the crediting system and other things are working as well. And those are costs that are paid for by your neighbors and your and the other customers as well. So but there's a there's we can do a lot of tomato. I have to do it potentially.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: I wanted to. I think we're made it out.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I I'm good with this.

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: I am.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Tomato, thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Floratorium. Perfect.

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: Happy to be

[Lisa Morris (Vermont Electric Cooperative)]: a part of that. Yeah. Okay. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Candice, thank you for your time. Yep.

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

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

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: Good morning. I will avoid tomato allergies.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, you know You're gonna start throwing tomatoes. Already ready. Yeah.

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: Morning. For the record, Ken Nolan. I'm the general manager of my Supply Authority. It's always nice to be the last utility to speak because my testimony is largely ditto. I agree with what the others have said. In particular, Lisa, as a practitioner of how this actually works, her testimony really resonated with me and you'll hear similar themes in what I'm gonna be talking about. I need to start with our position on net metering overall. We continue to believe that net metering benefits affluent customers at the expense of low income and moderate income customers. So we start our entire conversation around that understanding and believing. I also need to say, I spent a lot of time talking to other joint action agencies, utilities around the country. Vermont's net metering lot is the most complicated in the country. We have separate adjusters for locations, timing, grandfathering for ten years, but then you go on to the new rules after ten years, the billing companies that try to set this up so that utilities can bill their customers can't figure out how to do it. But every time the legislature makes a change, we spend thousands of dollars programming or reprogramming the billing systems. And even having done that, often the rules can't be implemented and it takes manual labor to do the calculations to the tune of dozens of hours. Any additions to net metering, we consider to be an overhead that our customers have to pay, and it affects affordability. The other part, you've heard a little bit about this from previous witnesses. Net metering when it first started, there was huge benefits to utility. That has eroded over time. As net metering and solar development has become saturated, the peaks have moved, and therefore the value of the energy provided has dramatically dropped. And what's not usually obvious to folks is that drop in value doesn't just affect new installations. All of the solar that was installed before also has seen a dramatic drop in the value to the utilities. But the incentives are still there based on the value they were producing at the time they were installed. So as we reach saturation, the cost shift is only increased because we have all of the incentives from the old generation that has to be paid with not the value actually materializing. I was at a local board meeting about a month ago and their operations department put a graph up that showed statewide, there are hours of the day now when Vermont's total load is less than 100 megawatts because of the generation that's produced here inside the state. So I would argue there's not really a need for incentive to do about in state generation. The incentives really need to be around how we manage that and use it at the right times. On the page seven sixteen, I'll just I'll just state it. We do not believe this bill is necessary. We don't support it. We think PUC is mister Faber testified, has the authority to look at all of the issues that were raised in the bill. We also agree with the economic development position that the PUC and other utilities has taken. That's not really something that should be on the back of electric rate payers, and it's counterproductive. And on battery provisions, you've heard others say, GMP has a very good battery program that's operating. VECs standing one up. The small municipal utilities this year got a multimillion dollar grant from the state through the DPS specifically to implement distributed energy energy resource management tools and to install in home batteries in low income customers. So we're in the process right now as I speak of standing up a battery program ourselves, targeted to the low income customers initially. But the way that grant was structured, the program can't be economic just on those installations. So once we have the tools in place, we have a huge financial incentive to expand that program to other customers. So we're also concerned that this bill could potentially undercut that program and complicate the incentives that we're looking to provide.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Who is that grant number?

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: That's from the Department of Public Service, but a pass through from the Department of Energy, a federal federal grad. Our share was given through two applications jointly to PEPSA, a Burlington electric department and Washington like a co op. We jointly applied and together I think the combined grants somewhere in the $4,000,000 range to both stand up the software to be able to manage the batteries and install batteries themselves. On the specifics of the language, as I said, section one, we believe that PUC can can do the analysis that's requested within the authority they already have. On section two, we agree with the EC's testimony. We don't oppose removing the adjusters for consumption truly used just in the hold. But in order to calculate that, it's gonna have to be a valid calculation. And as was alluded to, right now the small municipal utilities do not have hourly metering on their retail customers, so they're not capable of doing that calculation. We are installing in Swanton advanced metering or hourly metering is just becoming operational in the next month. And most of the VEPSA member utilities are looking to install that metering over the course of this summer. But it's something that's not there today as I'm sitting here. I'd also point out then back to the billing, adding those type of adjusters is yet another complication that we would have to figure out how to deal with the billing system. On section three, the battery provision, I stated we're very concerned that having another state program that sits beside our program with different incentive, different structure. We have a tendency to create multiple offerings that undercut each other and customers get confused and are trying to figure out where I go for the best benefit here. Every time I sit in this chair, I try to urge you to give the broad policy and let the utilities figure out how to do it in the most economic way possible. The more specific you get, the more difficult that actually makes our job and potentially slow things down. The language related to third party virtual power plants is actually extremely troubling to us because that implies that a third party that's not associated with the utility and potentially doesn't have to coordinate with the utility could be running these programs inside our territories. And so you're having the utility get an incentive for a value that may not actually benefit all customers. So we prefer that that language, if you do move forward, that that language be repaired. And I just I wanna put a finer point on it was mister Faber who just testified on the the size of the 50 megawatt install. Just wanna put some numbers around. I'm an engineer by training. So I tend to dive into the the numbers side of things. 50 megawatts is about 50,000 kilowatts. And I think the bill said that each battery had to be a 10 kw size, which actually is small compared to what an installer or developer would suggest you need. As was stated previously, they tend to propose two batteries for a home, which gets you more of 11 to 15 kw capacity. If we go with the 10 that's in the bill, that's 5,000 batteries installed in homes in Vermont per year in perpetuity. It's a very aggressive goal. If you look at how net metering has been installed, I don't think we've done 5,000 a year. What has been said previously, this has the potential to create a perverse incentive on the solar side because the bill requires that these batteries be paired with solar. So in order for the PUC to meet the goal, they would have to set the incentives high enough to do 5,000 batteries per year in Vermont. You may find yourself in a case where there's not enough solar being installed to allow that to happen. So you would simultaneously have to increase the incentives on solar to make sure that you're installing 5,000 net metering projects and 5,000 batteries at the same time, which becomes a major driver of unaffordability in our view. I think I will stop there. Just urge you, we we really don't think this bill is already for prime time. I think the PUC has the authority to do do a lot of what you want already and which but they don't have the authority to do. Utilities are already moving forward very rapidly to do and are getting financial incentives to do so on a number of cases. So we we urge you really to think about the higher level policy and let the utilities and the PUC focus on how we do that in

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the most economical way. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Director? Question. Oh, I'm sorry. We had a question. Sorry. Representative Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: For that 50 the battery installation, the incentive could be to add batteries to existing solar could pick up some of that.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It could. It could. Initially, that's true.

[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: But it it it was stated there's no sunset in this bill. So and as as you reach saturation of things, it gets harder to install and have to incentivize you.

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hey.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: C. J. Poor, public service department.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome back.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you for having me. And, yeah, I think adding cleanup here is convenient for me today. I think that department is going to echo a number of comments, but maybe provide some emphasis on some that you've heard today. I'll start off just reminding the committee that I agree with well, some people said it today, but Peter Sterling from R. E. B. Also testified in this committee that leaving the rates to the experts at the PUC to set is the right course of action. And so I wanted to say that's a area of alignment that we have, and I like to

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: point those out when we have them. So

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I also am you know, I haven't heard, and I'm glad that I haven't heard any, comments from the committee about this bill as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions, because and I'm glad that I haven't heard that because, I I actually, on the electric side, of how we count towards our TWSA requirements, this this bill makes no difference, right, because the res sets the pace of the amount of new renewable energy we'll have in Vermont. But what it does do, and I wanna remind folks, is that it, actually harms our ability to make progress on greenhouse gas emissions. The extent that it makes, electric rates more expensive, that hurts the economic proposition to switch to electric vehicles or heat pumps for everyday customers. And so, every time that we're talking about adding cost to electric rates, that is a outcome. And that's not to say we can't add cost ever, but I just want it it needs to be a a consideration. And so then, you know, it and the committee needs to think about what is it getting for that cost and and what is it getting? I wanted to echo one of the things I was going to comment on. Mister Faber said it pretty well that this is a transfer of wealth to net metering customers for a lot of people who don't net meter. And a reminder, another reminder, mister Sterling testified that these net metering systems cost $27,000. Miss Morris just mentioned that batteries are another $25,000. So if we're talking over $50,000 investment, I just want everybody to think about who in Vermont is making those kinds of investments that is not the most vulnerable Vermonters. And, you know, a small change here is not helping a system pencil out for people who can't afford it. Commenting on kinda incentivizing people to generate and use behind the meter consumption. They're offset their behind the meter consumption in every hour. I testified last time that that is a something that we support that but we need to be sure we're compensating anything that's exported. You know, I think it was suggested that it can't be compensated at zero. I would say it would be compensated at the value. Mister Kleppner, you brought up the wholesale value of the solar. That is something that the department has proposed in the past is, compensating all exported generation and, what it is worth. And so we'd be open to those discussions. That would be a PUC proceeding, I think, to, really overhaul the compensation structure for net metering. One of the challenges with this is that we're kinda zeroing in and addressing kinda like just the trying to address just the behind the meter consumption portion of this, but we have a structure that provides incentives for the behind the meter portion of it and the exported generation portion. Right? And so, you know, when people talk about, you know, we've heard it phrased as penalties for your own generation or, you know, the negative adjusters, that's part of the balance with the compensation for excess generation. Yes. And, you know, when I think last time the EEC passed by us today, I don't think, but last time that 75 of the generation for solar is export. So they were in at a fan, and 25% is twenty year, it's, you know, 73, 27 or something like that. And that's that's a really significant number, you know, if that is, you know, and and really balancing that out, the PUC now balances that out through both, you know, the rate that applies to the body monitor and the export. And so if you were just targeting one portion of it, only targeting we're we're disrupting that balance that was established after fact finding testimony on the record under o the anti PUC process. And so I was just gonna go back to that's the process to do it. And if we kinda target one little aspect of it, it's going to create create an imbalance in a lot of issues. Skip my notes on the tomato analogy. Thank you. Great.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I just mister Nolan brought up the the issue on storage that I was gonna bring up in terms of it it encouraging the way it's written now, and it really encourages you need that much net metering in order to, support that much, storage.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: think that we're around in 2025, around 12 megawatts of net metering for the state, and I would expect five to 10 in 2026. It just we had saw a small decline because the tax crisis has nothing changed. Sorry. Say that again. So in 2025, we saw about 12 megawatts. All the numbers, the reports aren't in, but of net metering, you know, in capacity installed in 2026. I would expect that to drop slightly. But remember, that does not change the amount of total new renewable energy. In fact, we've seen I have it in the annual energy report slide, but over 50 megawatts of, purchase power agreements being filed. So in permitting, a lot of new solar that we would expect to come online in the next couple of years. And so we

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: there on that volume.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just in terms of storage, generally, I just wanted to, this is in the presentation I gave on the annual energy report, but, in terms of how much storage we have, we already have in Vermont 10% of our 2025 summer peak. So 10%, And that's nine 19% if you consider what's under construction and permitting. So almost 20% of our summer peak would be able to be met by storage in the near future, 10% now. And that is so then here. That's about 85 megawatts deployed and then, you know, another 60 to 70 in construction permitting already. Comparing to other states, we have Massachusetts. It's 3.9% of their summer peak. Maine is 3.2% of their summer peak. Connecticut is point 6% of their summer. Right? They all have these goals and statute that we are exceeding what their goal is for the future already with the way our, the incentives, our electricity our electric utilities have lease cost planning, and what we're enabling further, with grants that, we've given to smaller utilities to encourage the management systems to keep that going and have them, kind of join, some of the larger utilities providing these options. And so we're we're pushing we're we we don't I would argue we don't need anything in statute to continue our our really, really good and region reading leading progress on storage. So I'll just circle back to the the compensation and the whole, you know, a wholesale review of net metering and really what its place is in the picture, I think we're open for that. Imagine that being a topic for the energy plan coming up and, you know, to have processes up going forward to address that and and to have public processes together input and understanding technical analysis on what that means. But, really, just targeting one piece of the puzzle here is is problematic and will have unintended consequences, or I think they're unintended of, increasing rate pressure for everybody and making it harder to meet our greenhouse gas emissions.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Propellant? So do you know the total amount of capacity of net metering and the total capacity of solar, whether or not the total solar includes the solar net metering.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So it is in the annual energy report, which you all have. My my battery died on my computer. I'll still be able to pull that

[Steve Knowlton (President, Washington Electric Cooperative Board)]: up. Plus 12.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: But I believe it's both over 400 megawatts of net metered solar and over 600 megawatts of solar altogether. So I would point you back to the think you're reporting.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I remember three fifty. Right. I forgot that.

[TJ Poor (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That was just that me. Right. Right. Yeah. But, yeah, maybe maybe it's around 400.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm also. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. TJ, thanks so much for being here. Just looking ahead to this morning. Alex, did Charlie Baker cancel? Yes. Okay. Do you think that Catherine could come at 11:30 instead?

[Candice Morgan (Green Mountain Power)]: I also have very long.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can you ask? Mhmm. Okay. Folks, so assuming that we can push our 11:15 testimony to 11:30, I would want to take a break now. I think we have some number of committee members who signed up to pitch some ideas before probes between, like, eleven and 11:15, so that's actually kinda perfect. And I wanted to have this I'm gonna pitch TJ. And then I'll just be circling around with committee members to talk just get some little temp checks on

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: this bill

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: between now and 11:30. And or over lunch. Okay? So thanks everybody for being here. We can go off live

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: and