Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We are live. We are live. We are back. And we are taking up S-two No, two zero four. I'm ahead of myself and acclimating to a 100 repair assistance and utility disconnection. And today we're going to hear from Carol Bliss from the Department of Public Service, and then we will hear from Greg Faber when he gets here from the PUC. I'm gonna have some utilities in and I'm trying to think maybe we will have the office on aging or AARP, somebody come in and talk to us about the, you know, their C issues and what they are. So, Carol, welcome. Thank you. Thank you so much for inviting me.

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for providing the opportunity to testify. Again, I'm Carol. I serve as the Director of Consumer Affairs and publish information with the department. Regarding this bill, Vermont Energy Equity Law, Senator Rebecca White indicated that the stated purpose was to address energy affordability within the context of Vermonters facing an 11% energy burden. We, the Department, are focused on affordability. The Department is actively helping reformers reduce bills through efficiency efforts and to reduce costs for ratepayers moving forward. There are efforts underway to help utilities save money and avoid costs. I wanted to offer that my colleague, TJ Poor, who's the department's planning division, could come in and talk about those efforts as well if you're interested in additional information on our efforts around affordability broadly. Disconnections increased by about 31% between April 2022 and April 2025. I wanted to put those dates in because that statistic had been shared previously. Okay, but we had a ban on disconnects, right, during COVID? We did. A ban on disconnects, and you look at disconnections for 2021, then you can see the spike from 2022 to 2025, so the word discount to it from 2022. Eighty five percent of the disconnections that occurred during that period of time, when I did quick, simple math, were then reconnected within fifteen days, so these are definitely disconnections for nonpayment, and people then do make efforts to try to get their accounts reached, that's how they We see have limits, you can't disconnect if there's a medical device, there are There are significant consumer protections in Vermont. Rule is a rule, the residential disconnection rule 3.3 that protects consumers, and that rule provides protections, again, as you indicated from medical notes. If someone has a serious illness, they can seek and then medical note or physician's note from their care provider and it will stall a disconnection for one month and then repeat it for a second consecutive month. Beyond that, if there were extenuating circumstances, they could appeal to the Public Utility Commission for additional relief from that disconnection effort. There are payment arrangements. People can make payment arrangements. It's the bread and butter of my team's work is to help people with talking to their utility and working out payment arrangements. There are other protections around notice. Notice is required. And that's been longstanding. It's back into the of these long standing consumer protection law. Thank you. So, just looking at the bill,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: in section two paragraph 2A, it added language about a physician's certificate certifying that a rate would suffer immediate or serious health hazard and and requires the report with the department commission to to amend rule 3.3. The way you just described it, something like this is already in place. That's correct. So, is it have have we seen the copy of rule book 3.3 yet? I'm wondering. I don't Someone could provide it to us so we

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: could see what's actually in. If you would mail that help approval. That would. That would be helpful because I'm not I'm not sure why

[Unidentified Committee Member]: this is added if it's already in there. Is this you think it's redundant? I'm not sure either.

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: I don't think they'll exactly in front of me, so I'd like to do that. But the the language looked like me, like there was some attention needed, I couldn't tell what was driving that. Maybe it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: not covering everything, and then there's not language in the rule right now about extreme heat, Is there?

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: There is not language in the rule about extreme heat, and I'm gonna talk about that. Okay, sure. Ahead. Absolutely. So one of the things I did wanna point out is the number of disconnections that were disconnected for arrearage greater than $3.00 $1 past due and that $3.00 1 is after the reporting requirement, did increase by 37% between April 24 and April 25. So, we're seeing increases on the higher end of this section of movings. Last September, in case number 20Five-four43 PT, which results in an energy burden report that was provided to you all last week. The department did recommend that the Public Utility Commission ask the legislature, among many other recommendations, authorize the commission to investigate and as may be appropriate, implement a statewide low income rate program. We're generally supportive but within parameters of what

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: you can get. I'll go

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: through those details in a second. Prior to implementing a program, the Department strongly believes that additional analysis is needed. We suggest the committee consider providing a year to perform that analysis, and if the analysis determines that a program is warranted, then program design and development could be addressed in the following year. Determining which structures are most appropriate for Vermont will require further investigation on a number of issues and some of the questions that we have, what discount level will offer meaningful impact to customers with all in terms of that shifting too much burden to customers who do not qualify for the program. So, pay attention to that benefit cliff, which I'm sure you've heard discussed about programs consistently. A walking guardrails should be in place to provide balance. How would we address revenue shortfalls associated with the program? How would it be recovered? Statewide or utility specific jurisdictions? Mall customers or just those who do not qualify for the program? Is there a specific threshold for an electric burden that the rates should be striving to achieve? If so, what should that target be? Should it be linked to energy burden or some such? How to adjust discount levels over time to account for electrification of the thermal and transportation sectors and the associated increase will be electric stripable planning determining full energy burden for customers. Whether discount rates should apply to an entire bill or just a portion of the bill, I. E. The minimum amount needed to fulfill basic needs versus some buffer to encourage conservation. What is the best way to manage a program to ensure that eligible participants actually do participate? A comprehensive review of existing programs and energy policy is warranted to assess program efficacy, potential synergies between programs, points of under and over subscription, cost effectiveness, and barriers. We think that examining the costs of state energy policies could also help to identify potential funding sources that might be reallocated to address energy. You have the PUCs? You have my testimony. Well, I have your testimony. Yes. Yes. It'd be very helpful if we send a drafter out to draft something to have your recommendations get picked so that we've So, without a more nameless analysis, we could see some unfortunate, unintended, and disparate outcomes that could exacerbate the affordability crisis for some and maybe only provide modest benefits for those most of the needs. So we're just asking for a thoughtful So we do recommend the further investigation of statewide funding source. I'll probably say that four times. Just be sure that we can assist customers with their electric bills. I do have a couple of comments about S-two zero four, and then that will get into the extreme heat conversation, and also the commelinability thresholds. The department has been supportive of curtailing disconnections during periods of extreme heat because of concerns for vulnerable and providers. In the past, how we've handled that is that we've asked electric utilities to voluntarily hold off on disconnects during heat waves, and this has been successful. So, without removal of prolongation, we just ask if they cooperate, it's fine. They generally will tell me when we make that ask, they had no intentions of shutting people off during the heat wave. The US Environmental Protection Agency offers that extreme heat could be defined in a variety of ways and could vary based upon a region's particular climate, so heat feels different in Vermont than it feels in the South. 90 is hot here. I it's dry and forced back when it was 90 degrees and take nothing off it, but that was Kentucky. So, have interactive maps to paint scenarios for extremely hot days based upon warming temperature trends. Extremely hot days is when the temperature equals or exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit. I couldn't find a data set for days that the temperature equaled or exceeded 95 degrees Fahrenheit, but I could find data for Burlington for days of temperature equaled or exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit. So between 2015 and 2019, there were sixty five days exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and between 2020 and 2025, there were sixty eight days exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit. So that indicates a slight warming trend. I had expected that data to be much more exaggerated, so I thought I'd share that. It was just interesting. So, the bill does set income eligibility at 300% of the household federal poverty level. I just want to point back that need for additional research, in our opinion, I would look to the research and analysis to best set that so that there were some complement to the distinct programs so that it would be easy to determine eligibility, reduce administrative costs or burden, etcetera. Not that I think 300 is right or wrong, just to It hold off on might be better to do more in a lower percentage if they are getting a higher percentage of disconnect notices. Certainly, or high even to a combination of income and energy burden or something else. So, I just wanted to emphasize the department shares your concerns about affordability, we're supportive of a program generally, but just want to see some additional research first so we can best target resources. Thank you very much.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For that additional research, is that a report back from the department? Is that a full scale hire a consultant to do a major shiny report? Is that a task force? How do you envision getting more information?

[Carol Bliss, Director of Consumer Affairs, Vermont Department of Public Service]: It's a great question, and one of the reasons I was hoping Greg would go first. So we haven't talked at all with the PC, and I can tell you that the department is already working on a review of the 100, maybe more, 100 plus energy programs that are in existence now, so that's a plan. It's probably still in the planning stages, we're actively engaging in it. I would be happy to participate in any work on developing statewide programs. I think that's gonna speak for my division whether or not that work is best suited at the QC or your department, I have to speak with the commissioner about that. Just wanna be sure. Okay. What's the preferences? I think we could say, I'm sure this would not be to hire a consultant would probably cost more. Exactly. There's a there's a price difference. Across the street, yeah, across the hall. So whatever we do may have to be in house and may end up being some trial and error. If we do anything, so. So like I said, the department is working on those, that review of those programs and policies now, and that is in pending health's efforts, so. And the idea was a month I think it's going to take several months because we're this kind of program still has had. So Well, if we're still here, maybe we'll get back. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Greg, come on up. Sure.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Greg Taylor with PUC. I come with good news. We already did this study. In fact, we submitted it on December 1.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's what I thought.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: You go. There's one person reading this study.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I read that study.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: You've already done it.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I didn't get a notice, so

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It was required by Act 142 in 2024. There's cover. It's over 40 pages long. It's it's on I didn't see it on your committee page, but it is on senate natural.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It's natural. So if we can get it on our committee page, we can all read it.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah. I'm not sure. I would assume it went to your committee, but I didn't see it on your page. What's the title? Was called Act 142 of 2024 Energy Cost Stabilization Study, And it did exactly what Carol was talking about, compared all the existing programs and asked the question whether it would be a good idea to have a statewide low income program. And the answer is no. We don't think that it is good to do that. We believe that there's other programs out there already that are doing a better job. I can read a little bit from the study just from the executive summary here. Given the number and variety of low income energy assistance programs currently available, the Commission does not recommend that the legislature create another statewide program. Another part of this is the Commission does not recommend requiring utilities to participate in such a program because it would impose an additional burden on all ratepayers, including for miners with low and moderate income and those at the eligibility cliff, while providing only a modest benefit to those customers who participated. So basically to raise everybody's rates to lower a little bit for just some

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: people. It

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: doesn't make sense. You've weatherization out there, you have a bunch of have bunch of low income programs out there, you could What's funnel more

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: that? Well,

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: home it's heating also. You're looking at energy burden as a whole.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Electricity is a very Yeah.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Electricity. Your electric bill is a very small portion of your overall energy burden, at least in Vermont.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I've had my, yeah, new energy efficient We'll pumps are see how efficient and how much they add to my bill.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah. Well, you gotta pay for efficiency. Right? Let's see. So overall, if we did this so we send the report over, we said we we say this is not a good idea, and then we get a bill that says go forth and do it anyway. So if we went forth and did it, it would require substantial resources. We've had the higher folks. You're basically asking us to do a statewide social welfare program. We're the PUCs, so we'd have to hire people who are an expert in that area. It would take a long time, much longer than the six months allocated here. It would require substantial appropriations to hire more people. I'm sure that is not forthcoming. I don't see it in the bill. So that's our overall recommendation here. We don't support this at all. The disconnecting, that's different, that's fine. Basically just adds that in case of hot weather, can disconnect it. We already do all that other stuff. Physicians.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think they said they've done well asking the utilities, please just don't connect them once it's 95 degrees.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah, maybe that's a good idea.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: They've to send a guy out in the 95 degree heat.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: We did just revise our disconnection rule though, but we're happy to revise it again. So that's that sort of addition.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. I was confused when she

[Unidentified Committee Member]: was asked the previous witness was saying about report because I did read this report. You know, the report you did. It was sent to me in early December. But I was just skimming it again. And so I have two questions for you. Did you make recommendations of what we should do instead of

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: what we shouldn't do? We absolutely did.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. And so maybe you could just quickly run through those. And then

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: two that I It's a 40 page report.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, and I mean, just you don't have a I didn't

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: do like a full I didn't write a report.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: But, basically, it's saying there's a lot of other existing programs out there. You could funnel money to those. That's what we really wanted to do. If you really want to make a dent here, that's the way to go. That's our

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Then the question I asked earlier about rule 3.3, and you just said you just amended it? Is that

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: We did. Is that what Yeah, we just finished rule making.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the question I asked about the medical exemptions, is it already in there?

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I believe so. I'd have to really look at the detailed language, but I know we use physician certificates all the time so I saw that language too and I was thinking, wait don't we already do that?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay and what about the high, the HEAT?

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: That is not. That would be new.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Since it's a PUC rule not a PSD rule, right? Right. Could you send the rule through?

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It's on our website if you want to look. I'll send the link to our I remember

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: the no disconnect from medical, and I don't know if it was when I was on rules or here, but I remember that.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah. I don't know why that's in here. I Maybe there's some different wording here that I'm not seeing, but I'll talk to the folks who just did the rule and ask them.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The new is the heat, but the heat

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: is new to Vermont.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I mean, we've always been worried about freezing and not overheating.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: But we always have had physician certificate excuses or whatever you want to call them.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Can't shut off the heart and lung machine.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Right. If someone's got a pacemaker you shut it off. So we've already always had that, so I'm not sure what this is, And if

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you have it for gas, electric,

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: and water, all three? Yeah,

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: it's rule 3.3, And it's been in effect since I can't even remember. I was looking at

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the report. I did not read it. I'm sorry. Get a lot of nonsense. Yeah. Thank you.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Like I said, I'm not just sure what's on your answer.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm so glad.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I I

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: don't remember it on the list.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't see in there, I'm wondering if it exists anywhere. I'd love to know the number of disconnects we've been getting on average over, like, the last ten or fifteen years, and just to see if this increase of late is somewhat related to the pandemic programs that extended the or delayed disconnects. I think I could see that.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We just got that. We came

[Unidentified Committee Member]: back past prior to the

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, prior to pandemic. Okay.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: So you want the number of disconnects over the last

[Unidentified Committee Member]: ten to fifteen years just to smooth out through the pandemic to know if this major increase in disconnects was just a correction from those extended programs. My heart still goes out for why they're getting disconnected, we need to understand that, but I just want to know if this is an amplifying issue or somewhat just another reflection of the dwindling or winding down of federal programs that were put up during the pandemic.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: If you couldn't get the info for me.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Mary, I thought your information said you'd seen another spike between '24 and '25. We spoke to Scott Beck. We will get that, but I I think it wasn't testimony. Just wanted to know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: alarmed I should be in the same history of dyskinesia.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. That's a good question. The other one I wanna check by her information in that property tax, the.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: That's another one I wanna watch. BPR.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The really small jobs, and they'll only take two. And yeah. So not surprised.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah. I think it's not. But not

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: a happy stock either. Yeah. Okay. So in this one, we will all read the report and then go to decide what we're gonna do with it. Alright. Well I don't remember that on our list of reports. Is it posted somewhere? I could have. We'll get it as soon

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: as the child gets it. Usually these things go to you and April, so I don't know.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We very seldom ask, so if somebody forgot to put us on, we don't get them, but that sounds like something that might have I don't remember going through here.

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Well, was December 1, so you guys weren't even here.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: But I don't remember the the any request for a report or a discussion about that issue going through. Sure. It came up

[Greg Taylor, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: at some point, but a lot of stuff going on here.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. So committee, any more question? If not Just free ice cream. Oh, goodness. Do you think I'm trying to go? Minutes to get back.