Committee debates S.50 single‑plant definition, seeks limits to stop net‑metering ‘gaming’

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 10 continued deliberations on S.50, focusing on a proposed definition of “single plant” that would exempt facilities on the same or adjacent parcels from being treated as one plant only if they use separate generators, inverters and production meters and the group’s cumulative capacity does not exceed 10 megawatts.

The provision under discussion would add new language to the statutory definition of “plant” (30 V.S.A. §8002) and would apply specifically to the net‑metering program (30 V.S.A. §8010) and the standard offer program (30 V.S.A. §8005a). The draft amendment would also state that utility‑owned distribution and transmission lines are not part of a plant for this test.

Committee draft author Ben Badgley, who described himself as a non‑attorney drafter, summarized the proposal: “Independent technical facilities of no more than 10 megawatts cumulative capacity that are located on the same or an adjacent parcel shall not be considered a single plant if each facility uses separate generators, inverters, and production meters.” Badgley said the carve‑out is intended to allow separate small facilities to qualify independently for program enrollment when they have distinct technical equipment.

Members and stakeholders pressed on where to draw the line. The bill as drafted removes an older phrase listing wind turbines as an example and strikes explicit reference to “connections to the electric grid” from the net‑metering/standard‑offer sentence; the drafter said the committee could add “interconnection points” to the list of items (generators, inverters, meters) that must be separate for facilities to be treated as distinct plants.

Greg Faber, identifying himself with the Public Utility Commission, praised seeing the text earlier and said the language was helpful: “I’m very in favor with the PUC. I wish I had seen this language sooner.” Other committee members raised concerns that the draft could allow developers to split a single 10‑megawatt project into multiple smaller parcels or install separate inverters to access higher net‑metering compensation, effectively “gaming” the compensation structure. One committee member described a scenario in which a developer could set aside a small portion of a larger project under separate metering to capture net‑metering rates for that portion while selling the remainder under a different compensation pathway.

Julie Walsh of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group warned that current net‑metering compensation “is above the market rate in most, maybe all cases,” and argued the committee should guard against any change that would allow projects to shift portions of output into more costly compensation tracks for ratepayers’ expense. Committee members identified the policy trade‑off: enabling economies of scale for small projects versus protecting ratepayers from above‑market payments if larger projects can be broken into multiple qualifying facilities.

Questions also addressed regulatory and environmental review consequences. Committee members asked whether splitting a project would alter required environmental reviews or local notification, and whether the Public Utility Commission and the Agency of Natural Resources would treat split facilities as multiple projects or a single development for permitting and public‑notice purposes.

No formal vote was taken; the committee asked legislative counsel to incorporate agreed clarifications into a revised draft and signaled an intention to hear from the Department of Public Service and other stakeholders before finalizing language. Committee chair Representative Kathleen James asked members to read a forthcoming revised draft and agreed to leave time for additional stakeholder testimony, including from the PUC and Department of Public Service.

The committee also flagged possible next steps: decide whether to treat interconnection points as part of the plant‑separation test, confirm whether the 10‑megawatt cumulative cap is the desired limit, and assess how the change would interact with other statutory provisions (including tiering and eligibility for tiered programs). The discussion will continue in future committee meetings and the drafter will produce updated statutory text for review.