Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. All right, welcome back everybody, House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Wednesday, May 13. And we are going to try to get a little bit of a heads up from Ledge Council if we can on H710. Just so folks know, we're a little bit of orientation. This may be folly and it may not work. But my thought was that we could try to get a jump on bills that of ours or that we thought might be coming back from the senate so that we can be ready if and when they come. So, Ellen, that was my plan or that is my thought. So, anyway, I'm Rob Kathleen James from Manchester. Scott

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Campbell from Saint John's Barry. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. In the room, two.

[Haley Perry]: Haley Perry with the Crassentrove. Christopher Morrow. Peter Sterling, Renewal by the Jeep, Vermont.

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Great. Allison Descoff, Vermont is for a clean environment.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks, everybody. Ellen, so I am under the impression that h seven ten is coming back. Can you fill us can you fill us in? I think the senate has made some amendments or has has put some new language in, so curious if we can get a heads up on that.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll take that as we ask to the legislative council. H seven ten is not currently on the natural resources agenda. H seven ten was initially sent to Senate Finance. Senate Finance decided it wasn't for them, and they sent it to Senate Natural Resources. Senate Natural Resources has looked at one draft. It is draft 1.1 dated May 5, so make sure you are looking at May 5 1.1. What they did do is slightly rewrite what was a confusing subsection. Then they've added the decommissioning language from the PUC that the PUC pitched to your committee as well. And that is where they are now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we should be looking at hang on. I'm gonna find it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It's it's in today's docs. Alright.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: K. Yep.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Oh. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, what do you know? Oh. Oh.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Good. Check and make sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: On a recycling incident. Okay. Draft 1.1 dated May 5. Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And, Ellen, the the strikeouts and the highlights.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Would you

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: like me to walk you through that? Yep.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: When it does appear, what do they mean?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So this drop 1.1 is what

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: is in front of the senate currently, and so highlights are new language.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So strikeouts are stuff they removed, highlights are stuff they added?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a regular bill.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll let me just start while I'm at it. Okay. Okay. So you will recall that h seven ten is looking at the definition of plant as used in renewable programs. The proposal that you have is based on the stakeholder work that the PUC did. It is on page one in section one striking out the initial definition that is currently in statute about the factors used to determine whether or not something is a single plant or multiple plants. The language on page one is the language that you sent the Senate. The underlying language already on line 17 is what is being proposed for the change, generally. It's multiple facilities, multiple electric generating facilities, regardless of when each is constructed, shall be considered one plant if we use the same electricity generating technology, and are located on the same partial or contiguous parcels of land. However, such facilities shall be considered separate plants if On page two, you will recall that there are three proposed exceptions to this rule, and so they have been rephrased slightly for readability. On page two, the first exception, the facilities are for individual net metering and self consumption, and are not located on the same parcel of land, are wired to offset separate billing meters, and supply different retail customers. This is the first exception for net metering. The intro language on Line one has changed slightly from what you sent, but it is the same intent. I will point out that the Public Utility Commission has said that the and on line one should be an or, so it's net metering or self consumption, but this is the first exception to this rule.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. To our reporter? This is your bill,

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Make sure you're following along. So this is so we're we're continuing to try to make the language more and more clear.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: You have a thought on the on that comment by if that's the admission says that the and should be an or? Yes.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I look forward to making this change if they take up another draft of this bill.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The next exemption, line seven, the facilities are for multi owner individual net metering that are located on the same parcel as a common interest community, separate meters, separate retail customers. So again, just clarifying the sentence

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: on slide six. And

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: then subdivision C is the one that was more confusing. The facilities have separate points of interconnection, and a net metering facility and a standard offer program facility are not sited on the same parcel or contiguous parcels. And for facilities under each program, the total capacity located on a parcel or contiguous parcel does not exceed the program statutory capacity cap. So, it is the same concept as that passed out of here, but attempting to just be more clear, and so this is about when there are facilities sited near each other, they have separate points of interconnection, so long as that metering and standard offer are not sited together, and the capacity caps are not exceeded, they can be separate plants under this definition.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Repellent, raise your hand. Oh. Okay. No. K. Questions?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Just looking back. It's been. We

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I would say I will, I will plant this little fly right now. It's- If and when this comes back to us, and we need to prepare to take it. I mean, if we concur, whatever. Are you are you gonna be able to do a side by side? Would that be helpful? Yes.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. But given that this bill No. No. No. That is not being worked on.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Not yet.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That was in advance. Like, I think that would be helpful. I

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, this will be really the only thing on the side by side is the subsection because your bill did not include anything about decommissioning, which is the best part. Okay.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess I would also just add Senate Natural Resources found Subdivision C to be very confusing. Your committee did as well. They asked the PUC if they could make adjusted edits or if they agreed that it was confusing. PUC did say that they thought it was confusing. They proposed rewrites of it. I worked with them to further rewrite it, and it has been vetted by the PUC and the other renewable energy Vermont weighed in on it. So it is the same intent. Just to be clear.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Should we go forward? Okay. So the only other thing in

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: this bill is the addition of sections two and three, which are giving the PUC additional authority around decommissioning. They did make this proposal in here to you. Sent after resources, I'm not sure has actually taken testimony on this yet because quite busy down there. But section two is amending three BSA, section 20. So I'm on page three. This is amending their build back authority that they already have. So the commission or the Department of Public Service may authorize or retain legal counsel, official stenographers, expert witnesses, advisors, and consultants, temporary employees, and other providers of research, scientific, financial, economic, actuarial, accounting, or engineering services, so expanding the type of experts they can hire through Build Back, and then also explaining the reason for what they can use that authority for, bottom of page three, To investigate, review, plan, oversee, or carry out the decommissioning and site site restoration required by a certificate of public good issued to an electric generation and energy storage person or energy storage facility.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And you said

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: bill back. Yep. So both the Public Utility Commission and the Department of Public Service have the authority to bill back for services that they needed in order to work on a specific project. And so here, for the certificate of public good for either an electric generation facility or an energy storage facility, they already have authority currently to hire specific experts for specific projects, but this is giving them additional authority for those projects related to decommissioning and site restoration. And who are they billing? The applicant.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Project owner. So from Okay. So that's I see.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. If the developer wants to build a solar farm and the PUC needs help in developing the decommissioning plan, they can hire people and build a developer.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So that drop that would drive up the cost of project. I'll ask the department about this. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: They are specifically here adding language regarding consultants on financial economic actuarial accounting because the decommissioning process is speculative. It's based on the future and what site conditions will require. The PUC is looking for additional authority around hiring experts to help them make the financial calculations about what amount will be needed for potential decommissioning in the future.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: on page four, section three, this is a new section that's proposed to be added to title thirty two forty eight e, electric generation and energy storage facility decommissioning fund. So it's setting up a special fund for for decommissioning. So there is created the Electric Generation and Energy Storage Facility Decommissioning Fund. Shall be a special fund created for 32 VSA chapter seven sub chapter five and shall be administered by the chair of the Public Utility Commission. The Chair is authorized to collect monies for the decommissioning fund and to make disbursements from the decommissioning fund. Deposits in the decommissioning fund shall consist of all decommissioning surety fees collected for electric generation and energy storage facilities that have received a certificate of public good from the commission, and all money is drawn from decommissioning financial instruments. The commission shall deposit into the decommissioning fund each decommissioning surety fee it receives under this subchapter.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do these fees do these decommissioning surety fees already exist? So, are they establishing a new fee? So, it's unclear to me.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I actually I reached out to the PUC about this because they do have Currently, have authority as part of the two '48 process. They have decommissioning rules for what decommissioning process needs to apply to an electric generation facility or energy storage facility that gets their CPG. Currently, they've been using the mechanism of having surety instruments so that each entity needs to demonstrate that they have set aside the funding that would be necessary to decommission a site. I do think it is slightly unclear if that is what they're currently referring to. It does seem to me like they might want additional fee authority specifically to collect a fee to deposit into this fund. This language is still under development. Mhmm.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Well, it sounds like from what you just said that the applicant or the developer is required to hold hold that money

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yes. Right now. That's good at

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: the current that's the current situation. And this would this would change that at at the stakeholder. Potentially.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think think this language could use additional clarity because this section is just setting up a special fund for the public utility commission in which they can hold decommissioning surety. I think the mechanism of collecting may need additional authority. They have authority under Section two forty eight to require mitigation based under the criteria, so I think additional testimony may be needed on this. Sounds

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: like it. Thank you.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Bottom of page four, subsection C. Disbursement from the decommissioning fund may be made by the chair to undertake action that the commission considers necessary to investigate or mitigate or both the effects of an abandoned, non operational, or disclaimed electric generation or energy storage facility. Disbursements under this subsection may be made too, onto page five. Pay cost to third parties who initiate or complete facility decommissioning and site restoration where the holder of the certificate of public good is unknown, cannot be contacted, is unwilling to take action, is incapable of carrying out decommissioning or site restoration, or does not take timely action as ordered by the commission. Investigate ownership of or ascertain the holder of the certificate of public good for an electric generation or energy storage facility. Take other appropriate remedial action. Pay costs to persons retained by the commission or department under the what prior section of this bill, or return portions of the decommissioning surety fees as determined by a formula established by the commission to individual certificate of public good holders upon satisfactory completion of decommissioning and commission approval. Then there's some definitions here. Chair of Public Utility Commission. Commission is PUC. Decommissioning means to remove a facility safely from service and restore the site to its condition before this facility was installed, consistent with the facility's certificate of public goods and commission rules and orders. On to page six, decommissioning fund is the name of the special fund. Decommissioning surety fee means the contribution assigned to a facility and determined by a funding formula established by the commission not to exceed the average cumulative cost of obtaining decommissioning financial instruments for the life of the facility. The average cumulative cost means the customary and reasonable market based third party costs, expenses and fees associated with obtaining, maintaining, renewing, and updating financial instruments, and staff and attorney time and expenses. The Department is the Department of Public Service. Balances in the decommissioning fund shall be expended only for the purposes authorized in this chapter shall not be used for the general obligations of government or other governmental purposes. All balances at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward and remain in the fund. Interest earned by the fund shall be credited to the fund. The commission shall have authority to adopt rules and issue orders implementing this chapter. The commission shall provide to the treasurer of the state of Vermont an annual accounting of the decisioning fund. I'll page that the effective date is July 26.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Questions for Ellen.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Just If you get this, will there be more questions at the definitely about the decommissioning fund?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well As fate would have it.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: It just had.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. We let me see. I'm trying to keep track of my email. We have who's come to talk to us about the bill in the room. Renewable Energy Vermont is here. Anne Margolis from the department has submitted testimony, but it's not about the decommissioning language. And then TJ Poor. I want to do that one quick question. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And and this language was added to the same finance. Right? No. It's. No. Was added. Didn't you say they didn't take that going natural resources or they did?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No. They no. It was added to the natural, but I don't think they have specifically taken any test.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I see.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the department unfortunately has partially evaporated. Anne Margolis has submitted written testimony, she's gonna join us, I think. She's on the way to go. Great. On the single plant portion of the bill, but we'd invited Jim Porter to speak to us on the decommissioning part, and he's not able to be here today. And so I've just written to TJ to tell him that we'll definitely need testimony from DPS about the decommissioning language. So He's doing great. Super. Well, Ellen, thank you so much for joining us. I'm actually really glad think that was not a waste of time. So thank you so much for being here. Great. Greg, do you wanna

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Thanks, Ellen. Can I have five minutes?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, sure. Yeah. No problem. Peter, would you like to go first? Sure. Great. So, yeah, you've heard our purpose. We're trying to get a jump on 07:10 in the hopes that it's on its way back to us.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I can just set a record for my brief. Peter Sterling, New York, Vermont. I can set a personal record for briefest testimony ever.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: This bill is the result of a

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: lot of compromise and hard work since you initiated this process last March, and I think this works really well with both the decedentrician language and the the single plan language as far as, you know, both stated goals of, you know, protecting ratepayers, preserving these open spaces, and allowing solar power to be deployed as cheaply as possible in the most efficient manner. I hope this thing gets a few ways out of it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. So so the single plant language I mean, I'm just trying to high level here. So it seems like the single plant language is just an ongoing struggle to try to get language that people can understand.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're continuing to try to make that more clear, easy to understand. Can you talk to us a little bit about the decommissioning Sure. When the bill was in our committee, we took a little bit of testimony. There wasn't a whole lot of interest, so we just kinda dropped it and moved on. Right. You know, I'm not sure I remember, like

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Sure. I can

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: go ahead.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Seated opposition. It was more that we we just didn't

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: do it. Right. And at the time, the the language that the commission presented to you was not language that I was supportive. Mhmm. Since that time, we have worked through the the differences of opinion. And so the language they have presented to the centers, language that REV and other groups like BPER will think is beneficial. So right now, if you wanna decommission a solar project, it's basically modeled on like a nuclear power plant.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what wanted to ask you. Tell us how it works now and how what would

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: you So for any any solar array that's over 500 kw. So just think of something that's on, you know, more than two acres of land. K. Right? You there's a process that was modeled after nuclear decommissioning where you have to take a chunk of money and set it aside based on what the PUC has estimated would be the cost of it being decommissioned.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So right now, the PUC estimates what the cost of decommissioning would be, and the developer has to set that cash aside

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: In somewhere

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: in somewhere or the other.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: It could be a letter of credit. It could be a surety bond. It could be an escrow. And it really depends on what the developer how it works. The developer does it each developer does it differently based on their needs. So for example, like, a really, really giant develop like, someone massive, because they have such a massive amount of capital, a bank would say, well, you know what? You just need a letter of credit. That's super easy because you're so vaguely, you know, you have the money. A smaller developer, the bank, you know, would never give them that letter of credit because they don't have as much assets. So they say, you actually to physically come up with the money, which case, you know, all of these and and and these letters the whatever these vehicles are, the letter of credit, the surety bond, the escrow, they all can be updated every three years. By the PC says that to make sure it's current. Right? K. And that takes a lot of time, a lot of employers get involved, it for the developer, that's an ongoing expense for the project. And so folks have never, you know, been happy about it, but they just wanna live with it. And ultimately, and this is they pass that on to the ratepayer at some level, like, the cost of developing the project. And so when the PUC initiated this process, and they can they can they've said in testimony, one of the reasons they've initiated this process, they don't like internally having to update these letters every three years. Like, they have a lot of work staying on top. There's there's a 100 existing projects out there on between 500 that that qualify between 500 k w and five megawatts. So they're con you know, they're constantly trying to chase these down. There's papers that they have to get original documents that are sitting in boxes that they have rejected. I think Steph Hoffman had testified that, you know, there was a flood and the the floodwaters got, you know, within a bunch of feet of all those papers, in which case everything would have been ruined. Like, this is bad for them. This is a lot of work they don't want. They don't feel like benefits, ratepayers or anything. So they're looking for a different process, and this is the I think one of the most important points that they've read PUC has raised throughout this process is they wanna create a decommissioning system that works so well that it's not just for prospective new project, but that all those 99 or 100 projects that currently exist will want to opt in because legally, it would be very challenging to force someone force an existing CPG holder to opt in to a different decommissioning process than the one that's already in their permit. That'd be very difficult. It's not impossible. And so the PUC is motivated by a new decommissioning solution that will be so attractive to these existing products, they voluntarily come in. So there's one system for everyone. PUC has said in testimony, they do not want two systems on decommissioning. So that is very encouraging to wrap up. Yeah, and it showed and it showed up in the way they've come to the table to try to make this work. And so one of the things about decommissioning that I think we should just be realistic about is these are very high value sites. These sites in Vermont that currently hosts this solar are they're already connected to the grid. They've already been permitted once. The chances of of a lot of them being decommissioned are pretty slim. People are gonna want these to be repowered. So once those solar panels are done and they're getting recycled after their twenty five years, that infrastructure is there, that wiring, not just like the racking and stuff, but people are gonna wanna put new panels up on those sites because they get permitted once, the landowner presumably is already into it because it's been there. I mean, Windham really changed their mind, but that the number of these sites will actually be decommissioned is is is is very small in all likelihood. So that's why the PCS is is thinking of different ways of of financing decommissioning based not based on every single plane will be decommissioned, which was the current the thinking, I think, when this whole model started. Like, every nuclear power plant was gonna be decommissioned at some point. We knew it. Right? That's not the same for solar. There's much smaller percentage. And then of those that will be commissioned, the numbers that would actually go bankrupt is also much probably very small. These things have value. The salvage value of these solar panels, the racking and the wiring is enormous. So the PUC is gonna be studying all that during this new process, and I believe it will end up working out in a way that will benefit ratepayers, benefit the PUC, and help make it a little more affordable to go solar, which is our goal.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, Rick Campbell.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Sure. Well, this decommissioning fund, I'd like you to comment on what's attractive about it, but the first question that comes to mind is this would be for any generation project, Not that we're going to have more nuclear, but if we did, no. No. So is this only for solar? Only for solar.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Only for solar. Okay. Right. Well, that takes time. I guess you're gonna get to the Okay. But I I just wanna hear a little bit more about why this why this is so frustrating. Okay. I can do that. Okay. So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: solar and and other clean energy. Right? Seven ten is applies to wind.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Not not the decommissioning language. Electric

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: generation and electric storage. So electric generation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Because we had a question actually, and now I have no memories. We had a question on the floor, Peter, when we presented this bill the first time around about whether the entire bill applied to only solar or to all renewables aka wind? It's everything.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. This is this is under February. Okay. But, obviously, 90% of our renewable generation is solar. Right. So think of it in terms of solar.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But also We were until we got that question on the floor. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But but also solar. Right? Right.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And so so and and actually my my other question was, I think, Rob Campbell's question, which is this goes from parking all the money at the beginning of a project Yeah. To if you think the project's gonna last twenty five years to parking a twenty fifth of it every year to cumulatively at the end date to end up with the right amount of money. Is that accurate?

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: No. Not quite. This is more of like this goes from everybody parking money at the front, like you said Yeah. To more of a health insurance model with an actuarial estimate, like an estimate. The PUC throughout this process are gonna say, let's take a real look at all the literature. Get the experts in and say, how many of our projects do we actually think will be decommissioned? Got it. And of those projects that will be decommissioned, whatever Right. Small percentage, because there will be a small percentage.

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

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: How many of those would actually default, or likely default that decommissioned and likely have to access this fund? In other words, if health insurance pool, how many people are gonna get sick? How much money do they need? That's my understanding of

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the the process the PC is gonna undertake in developing this fund. So instead of upfront putting the amount that it would cost to decommission one entire project, you put in your share Right. Of what the whole system

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And that's where the savings comes in.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You know? So you've got a 100 people contributing, and if you if you think five projects will Right. Need decommissioning and the owner will have defaulted

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's right.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Everyone puts in That's right. $10,000. Pick your number. Yeah. Whatever.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: The the PUC will decide that number. They're they're not care

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: of what it'll take to decommission five plants twenty five years from now. 100%. Got it. Got it.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And so for example, like, one of the factors that will go in that's not currently evaluated when you have to write that big upfront check is what is the value of the south of all this stuff on that property? I mean, it is we have learned over time because when this law was written, you know, decades ago, it was we didn't understand solar as well and deployment. Now we have twenty more years of experience. So we understand now that the value of the salvage of a solar array has real value. We're talking 6 figures. If you pull that stuff off, yeah, people want that stuff to repurpose it and reuse it. It's very, very panels,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the inverters, the racking. The wiring. All the wiring. All that Very valuable stuff. Yeah. Yeah.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And so when you take when you factor in a certain percentage of that salvage being being you know, the offsetting the cost of potentially decommissioning, that really brings down the cost. But potentially bringing down the cost of how much you should have to come up with. It's fair assessment. Those are the things that will be evaluated by the PUC throughout this process. What do they

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: do with the panels? I'm sorry. Oh, you're right.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Well, right now, you know, sometimes they're broken down. Sometimes, you know, unfortunately, they get landfilled, and sometimes they're recycled. It really depends. So I think one of that's one the things the PC will evaluate is, you know, what is the value of the salvage? What happens to them? My very strong feeling is given the number of panels that were put up, you know, about fifteen years ago and in near in some time in the next decade, will also be not as useful. There's gonna be recycling programs. This stuff is very valuable. We're already talking about companies are already calling me about setting up markets in Vermont for collecting panels when they start coming off, and we're we're talking to them when you know, and and these people want these things. They don't and the and the landfill certainly don't want them, and that really gives you a greater incentive to

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

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: And they're 90% glass. Right? So we know what to do with glass. It's the other, like, 10% we gotta figure out how to dispose of properly. Interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know who's we should

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I I would just add that panels degrade at one, one point five percent a year, so if you're twenty years in, even at 1.5%, it's still got 70% of its generating capacity, and there are people in this country and people in other countries for whom that's great to be able to generate that electricity with this inexpensive used panel.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Interesting. Yeah. I mean,

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: you can send it over The Caribbean or even ship it over to Africa. Get a lot of more power output than they need to achieve, because people already talk about that.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Rebecca? So again, I'm wondering that the actuarial estimates coming up with a number that a developer would have to put in in order in order to to cover whatever is the expected cost would be. In the case of medical insurance, health insurance, we have a lot of data. In the in the case of of solar development and or or or battery development, we don't have so much data. So that sounds like a a difficult calculation here.

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: I I will admit I'm very much I'm very uninformed about decommissioning of energy storage project. That is see, I haven't done that much work on it. So if we really need someone else to speak to the energy storage part, I don't know what happens. But on the solar part, our people know, I mean, what it takes to bring a truck in and a bunch of workers and a bunch of, you know, screw guns and all that stuff to pull that stuff out and get rid of it.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: No. Well, that I mean, there are hard costs that are that are Yeah. And in fact, hard salvage value that that can get have to be estimated. But the actuarial actuarial part of it, how many are gonna get decommissioned? I mean, this is pretty much of a,

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: you know, wild guess. Well, I would say this. I would say it's it's less of a wild guess than you would think because when we talk to rep members and the people who finance these projects, these sites are nobody has said they want Unless a landowner wants to do something different with that land Yeah. Which is always possible Yeah. It would be very unlikely. And they might might wanna do it. They might. Exactly. Housing. 100%. They might. But where the most of these sites are located, my guess is in Vermont because we we have a law that says you need in state renewables. Mhmm. These sites are incredibly attractive for repurposing for solar. Like, the people that I talked to who financed these projects and who built them, if they knew a site was coming offline, they would be beaten down the door to get to that site to put more so on. It's that that because the

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: infrastructure's It's been perm

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: not fitting in. It been permitted once. Yeah. So presumably, the permit process, which is, like, one of the most biggest causes for a developer is, you know, if it goes on forever and all the question marks, if there's, you know, a problem with the site. Like, if you've gotten that cleared and you can get a site go fast or repurposed fast, that is incredibly valuable. And all of the people I've spoken to, like, we would be we would we would do everything we can to get that site repurposed barring the landowner changing their offices. But energy storage, definitely, I can do some more research and come back, or we could I could recommend some of it for y'all to

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: come back. Yeah. I would I would guess that a lot of it what we don't know is what's the value of what's the value of to get apart batteries. Right. But all the rest of the stuff, the wiring and the Yeah. Of infrastructure is is

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: But I I would also guess that the same would be true for the the physical location of an energy storage plant. Yeah. If that site has already been permitted Yeah. And the infrastructure's there, it would be incredibly attractive to repurpose that for energy storage. Yeah. Because that's that's a demand that will, even if there is new technology that might potentially displace solar, I don't think I think we're always gonna we will need energy storage in our region. Yeah. Right? You don't have a land based

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: to to build it forever. I would add from what I know about storage. The technology is evolving pretty quickly. So whether any of that the guts can be reused is unknown. Right. They may just be completely replaced with Yeah. Any one of the other things. But they are I think just the way this kind of deck goes, not likely to get larger and heavier for the same amount of energy density. So the pads and all that are presumably reusable scenarios.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Well, so that's the the is of doing paperwork every every three years of reauthorizing and whatever, and and addition to having a large chunk of money or a bond sort of on your books, you could just get a small, I I guess it would be an annual payment. Is that how how how

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: people Well, the PUC is gonna make a final decision, but the conversations we've been having, it's it's one upfront check. Uh-huh. Just you write. Yep. You write, and then you're you're done. Yeah. And then the PC does actually follow-up. There's no staff time for them. Yep. The developer knows their cost upfront. It's not ongoing. Yep. Ring and roll with attorneys chasing down much of credit banks to change their mind, and then when the project gets sold, have to chase down another bank, things like that. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And One minute. Can you see here? Which is

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: Can I just say one thing before I wrap? First, thank you for doing this bill. I believe it'll lower the cost of solar and help protect the environment with our two great benefits. But before I leave, I just wanna throw out that the PC continues to post net metering comments that are coming even though the public comment period came in May 1. There's gonna be there's a fact there's a thousand there's going to be a thousand comments when all is said and done. And of those thousand comments, only three were supporting making net more expensive. So 997 people weighed in saying, please don't make net metering more expensive so far, and only three have said, we think net metering's a bum deal. I think that's a pretty strong statement I'd send them this time. Appreciate You've heard me for that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, Peter. I'm not sure who's up next. Greg, do either you or Anne have are you under time pressure? I'm not, nope. Okay. Don't really care who goes first. Anne, do you want to go ahead? I

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: just wanted

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to clarify. I know you've submitted written testimony. Thank you so much. But you're speaking only to the single plant portion of the bill, not to the decommissioning part, right?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. That's okay. I wrote back to TJ and told him we definitely are going to need to hear from the department on the decommissioning portion of the bill. So anyway, but over to you.

[Anne Margolis (Deputy Director, Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont DPS)]: Great. Thanks for having me. I'm Anne Margolis. I'm the Deputy Director of the Regulated Utility Planning Division at the Department of Public Service, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come to you today and talk about the single plant portion of H710. I apologize that Jim Porter was unable to join us and we'll definitely pass along that message or reinforce the message you sent to TJ.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great, thanks.

[Anne Margolis (Deputy Director, Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont DPS)]: Yes. My testimony, I submitted written testimony. It's pretty straightforward, pretty short and sweet. Don't need to take up a lot of your time today, but the overall message is that we did not oppose the single plan language that's in H seven ten, either as it was passed out of the house or as it's currently being considered to be amended in Senate. We were part of the proceeding that the commission opened up as directed by the legislature. So last year, the commission worked with a bunch of stakeholders, as you already heard, to workshop, potential changes to the definition of single plant. And also, there was a sort of separate track that looked at the decommissioning aspects that they were asked to look at. I

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: think it was pretty

[Anne Margolis (Deputy Director, Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont DPS)]: collaborative work that we all did. There were versions that different stakeholders submitted for revising the definition of plant, all toward the stated legislative goals of looking at the land use benefits of colocation of energy generation facilities, looking at the ability to do a comprehensive review of colocated facilities under all of the various two forty eight criteria, and also looking at the potential impact to ratepayers associated with co located facilities. There

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: were

[Anne Margolis (Deputy Director, Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont DPS)]: iterations of the definition that went back and forth. The department had proposed a few additional aspects to the definition of single plant that ultimately were not adopted, but we are okay with what the commission ultimately recommended and what is in this bill. We do think that it will greatly reduce the confusion and time and expense that is currently associated with the ambiguities in the definition of single plant. And that will be helpful all around for all the different parties, including the department. The revisions that we had recommended had to do with not only allowing co location of plants under certain circumstances, which is what the proposed definition does, but, potentially actively encouraging colocation under, certain conditions. For example, on parcels that were preferred sites, perhaps as identified in regional and municipal energy plans, and also areas where the grid had verified headroom, both transmission and distribution headroom. Those suggestions were not adopted. As I state in my comments, we understand that this is a screening definition. It is not meant to accomplish all purposes and all intents of understanding where we would actively want to see colocation happen. It merely allows colocation under identified circumstances. So there are other opportunities to look at encouraging colocation that can be explored, and we would be happy to do that in the future. The other point we wanted to mention was just that the current definition or the proposed definition refers to existing renewable programs. So it refers specifically to net metering and the standard offer. It doesn't contemplate future programs. It would be difficult for it to do that, but it will be important if new different programs are introduced in the future, they'll be introduced in Title 30, and that would be a place to proactively when you're identifying and creating future new programs to identify how you would like them to factor into this definition, whether or not they would be allowed to co locate under certain circumstances with each other or with net metering or standard offer projects. So that concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, Anne. Does anybody have any questions? No.

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Great. Thank you

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: very Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Greg, thanks for waiting.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah, sure.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Greg Favre with the PUC. Good to be back here in a while. So h seven ten, I guess, it's been a bit of a confusing ride on this bill. I was told late last week that this bill is not coming back to you folks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So are we.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Now I'm being told maybe it is.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what we heard.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Again, based on nothing. But so happy to talk about anything. You've heard all the explanations here. I don't disagree with any of them. I think mister Shirley, has done a great job here. So, any questions for me? Happy to try and answer.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't have any specific questions. Our I as I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, our goal is, you know, as the sands run through the hourglass to make sure that if a bill pops back to us with as time runs out, that we're not frantically trying to schedule testimony on any new language. So the decommissioning part, it's just been reassuring for me to understand what it means, understand how it works, and here on the record instead of like in the cafeteria that, you know, PUC and the department and Rev are all okay with it.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. And this would have to go to ways and means up here. Imagine. Because it does create a fund. So I wanna give you guys a heads up on that because downstairs that was a surprise in Senate Natural and they said, wait a minute, this has to go back to finance because it was originally financed. Whole long story. So that may be something you folks wanna take into account, especially if you're starting to run out of time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That alone

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: If it's I don't

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: know if it's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: and means. Your price of admission. I haven't thought about that. Yes. No. Ways and means.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Don't think

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: there. Yeah. As of my understanding of bills that go to ways and means, and I've literally heard this said many times, anything that ever mentioned or contemplated or might mention or contemplate any kind of fee, assessment or So, a tax, or a yeah, you'll have to go to ways and means.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So, I think, yeah, I know. Well, yeah, something to keep in mind. Okay. Cut into your time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Do we have questions for mister Shaver? I guess

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I do you have any thoughts on the fund itself? I mean, it's it's it's sort of a department thing. But

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the fund no. No. That's our that's our idea.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Oh, sure. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They'll weigh in on it at some point. TJ is gonna weigh in on it, but I think they're fine with it. You know, right now, we we get surety bonds as mister Sterling explained, and they're they're difficult to acquire and to maintain over the life of the project. This would be a much easier and less expensive process for everyone. We just have a fund. Everyone pays into it upfront. That money sits there. If that if that company goes into delinquency or bankruptcy, we will have that money and we can disperse it out of the fund much easier than going back to a financial institution with the, you know, the bonds and saying, hey, now we need money and try to coordinate all that. But as Mr. Chittenden says, we don't get a lot of decommissioning. In fact, we have had any so far. So but we think this will work just in case we do get it in the future. We'll have better with it, and it'll be less expensive for everybody.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So at its most basic, the central change here is that instead of these decommissioning funds being held by all the developers, it goes into a central pot from the get go.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right.

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: That's

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And the commission's managed. Right? Not the not the property. Right. I hit

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That's right. So we it would be a fund managed by the PUC Right. Not the department. And yeah, that's basically it. Setting up a fund as opposed to right now we have a collection of individual financial instruments from each and every project. And those have to be maintained over the years. Sometimes financial institutions change. They change the terms and conditions of their surety fees. And so then that necessitates the developer to come before us and say, hey, this has changed. We've got this new one. Is this acceptable? Then we have to do a proceeding on that. It's all very time consuming. And this would be a much better arrangement.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I missed what I asked Peter. Think it was about the actuarial estimating required and and and sort of small relatively small amount of data compared to the medical channels. How do you assess the probability of needing that money and come up with a figure that each developer should get into it?

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. We're going to develop a funding formula. We'll do a proceeding. It'll involve all the stakeholders obviously and we'll come up with an actual formula for that to take all that into account.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I guess that will happen. I'd also say this change means there will be a lot less developer money tied up. Sure. They'll be paying for, you know, their share of five projects, you know, their 5% of a project instead of parking 100% of their own project, they have to go somewhere. I'm how we're going Free up a lot of capital in the developer world. My question is this, you figure five projects are going to be abandoned that you'll have to pay for and figure out how much everyone's share of that is, and they put it all into the fund. Mhmm. And then one of these things does default, and you have to decommission it, and it takes up more than you had counted on. Mhmm. Instead of a fifth of the fund, it takes up half of it. Right. Is there a mechanism for replenishing back up to, what, 80% of the original if it gets drawn down to 50% on one unexpectedly difficult decommission project?

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. That's a good question. I I think that that will be covered during the proceeding to develop the funding formula itself. Something obviously have to take into account.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. So you build in some, like, the standard

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So contingency some contingency in Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Case as you're decommissioning it, you hit a It's a lot more expensive. Giant underground leaking oil tank that no one knew was there.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. Right. And inflation there's inflation too, obviously, and cost of money and the future. And so, yeah, of course, it's.

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

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So if we I believe we heard that Shaft Ferry decommissioning might be $1,500,000 to take it all back down. So if that was the

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: number, wasn't it? No. It's in charge. But

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So if you have the largest solar farm out there and it defaults, is that what you're gonna base the fund on? Because I'm would be, like, expecting that that the the initial contribution would cover a huge decommissioning or cover a main just did not have, like, rep Kleppner said a possible drawdown to zero. Are you expecting there will be a fairly sizable Yeah. I mean, we'll have to account for all contingencies. So

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So I just wanna follow-up. Is not just for default. Right? This is for any project that gets to the end of its life, and the developer doesn't nobody wants wants to want to purpose it for for whatever reason. Mhmm. Then bringing that site back to the status quo That's right. Is is is is what's required. So the developer will will presumably have to pay for that.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: He would draw upon funds.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: He would draw upon the fund. Yeah. So the fund would cover that as well. That's right. Okay. Yeah. That was that was my question. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Any other questions for mister Favor? Very selfish. Oh, well,

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: I was just thinking because of the timing in the session, you could just hold that decommissioning language for a separate bill next session. Like, is there anything integral to the single plant bill that we'll be impacted just to be able to I mean, it's not our issue. It's the senate's bill.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, you're saying I I get I guess I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Well, it it sounds like the decommissioning idea is a really good one that you had already been framing up in advance of the single plan. You've been thinking about It's

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: been added to the single plan language in the senate. They already met amended seven ten to include the decommissioning language I was talking about.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: but my question is, just in terms of logistics of getting seven ten past this session would be, what if you didn't include that language now but did it later? Especially because you said there's not a lot of pressure

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: on That's not the language that's holding the biller. Everyone's fine with the decommissioning language. It's the other part. It's the single point language.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And and he's keep thinking of

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: the ways and means the constraint that ways and means

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yeah.

[Allison Descoff (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: You know I'm saying?

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I understand it. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Honestly, ways and means will spend fifteen minutes on this. I mean, they're just lining them up, and it's really more just to let them know. We've got a bill for you to add to your runway. Here.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Sticking points. That's the airport. That

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: is a a new parliamentary term for me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But I do my recollection of this idea was that we heard it, you know, when PUC came in at the beginning of the session Mhmm. And presented us with the results of s 50 and said we were we were chakra language, and by the way, we would also like you to include and we took some testimony on it at that time, and we moved on without including it. I honestly don't remember why. Think we just felt like we needed to

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I think we're running out of time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Running out of time. Mhmm. Yeah. So I'm not surprised, actually, to see it come back. We have some testimony on it. We crossover, and we have your original proposal.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. There's a there are slides that that you folks

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yep. We have them. Yeah. We presented with.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So but I yes. Okay. Yeah. Rep Campbell?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And I get and you must have said this since I was thinking about something else. So you're happy with the single client language too?

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, yeah. We've worked with the

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: senate on that, and it's it's

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: it's fine. Yeah. K. We're fine with the whole bill. There wasn't much pushback in the senate, but that was a small problem. I'm being told maybe it could be worked out. Yeah. I'm hopeful. Didn't seem like that on Friday,

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: but The antorb thing. No.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: No. Yeah. Or is it Yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Not that. Maybe a little bit. That's what

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. So thank you. That was really helpful.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I feel like yes. You just see us you see us responding to the latest rumors. Seven ten is coming back. Get ready.

[Greg Favre (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'm gonna go find out Lauren

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Here we are getting ready. So, alright. We can

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thanks, folks. Thanks, Greg.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We are Actually, sorry. I've been told to always let the YouTube world know when we're coming back. We are done for the day, and we will be back tomorrow morning to learn about high efficiency biomass to try to do a little preview on H 753 and to try to start to do some preview work on data centers. Again, keeping with the theory of let's try to be ready for our bills that might be coming

[Peter Sterling (Renewable Energy Vermont)]: back.