House committee debates H.394’s single‑plant definition as it walks through renewable energy bill

Members of the Vermont House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 10 discussed H.394, a miscellaneous bill that would revise several statutes governing renewable energy generation, concentrating most of their time on proposed changes to the definition of a “plant” that would affect how co‑located projects are treated.

The committee spent the bulk of its meeting on section 3’s new single‑plant language, with Ellen Jankowski, legislative counsel, describing the bill as “a collection of different provisions related to renewable energy” and warning that the proposed change to the plant definition "has been litigated multiple times and may be the subject of litigation currently." Jankowski said the new definition would treat co‑located facilities as separate plants when each has separate generators, inverters and production meters, and would cap co‑located independent technical facilities at 500 kilowatts cumulative for net‑metering eligibility.

The change under discussion would alter the current test, which looks at shared infrastructure and other factors such as common ownership and contiguity of construction. Proponents argued the revision would prevent developers from having to construct redundant roads, poles and other infrastructure solely to meet a statutory test that treats two adjacent facilities as one. Ben (VPIRG) told the committee the existing definition “creates a situation ... where equipment, and other infrastructure like roads, poles, wires, etcetera, that is not necessary from a technical or engineering standpoint for a plant to be built, winds up being required.”

Ben and other witnesses proposed keeping the existing definition for net‑metering and the standard‑offer program but applying a revised, technology‑focused test to other kinds of generation. Under that compromise, net‑metering and standard‑offer facilities would remain governed by the current statute to avoid unintended disqualification of small projects that rely on those programs.

Advocates representing renewable energy developers suggested a cumulative cap for non‑net‑metering sites — citing a 10‑megawatt per‑site cap in draft language circulated by Renewable Energy Vermont — which they said would allow reasonable land use while preventing indefinite stacking of facilities. Committee members noted Vermont already has single sites built at larger scales, and witnesses said a 10‑megawatt cap was not intended to be a precise policy limit but a practical guardrail.

Committee members raised technical and legal concerns. Jankowski warned the definition change would have ramifications beyond the Renewable Energy chapter because the definition appears in multiple statutory sections, including 30 V.S.A. §8002 and references in §248, and has been the subject of prior court cases upholding PUC interpretations. Members asked PUC staff and other technical witnesses to explain how interconnection points, generation meters and inverters are defined in practice and whether separate interconnection points are required when facilities are added to a site.

H.394 also contains other provisions the committee reviewed briefly: a proposal to add a net‑metering deployment target of at least 20 megawatts per year to the net‑metering statute; statutory timelines for PUC decisions on certificates of public good (12 months for in‑state facilities of 5 MW or less, 15 months for facilities greater than 5 MW); creation of a public energy advocate appointed by the attorney general with a $120,000 appropriation for the position; and a December 15, 2025 PUC report on conversion of forest land for renewable generation and mitigation measures required by the PUC.

Committee members agreed to “park” most of H.394 for later work and to concentrate now on single‑plant language that could be attached to S.50. The committee asked staff and stakeholders to refine compromise draft language and invited PUC and other technical witnesses to return to clarify engineering, legal and financial implications. Ellen Jankowski said she would remain available to the committee and that counsel would draft or review proposed language before the committee considers amendments.

The discussion made clear that the committee seeks to balance two aims: preventing developers from artificially subdividing large projects to access program benefits intended for smaller facilities, and avoiding unnecessary, costly infrastructure that increases environmental impacts and ratepayer costs. No formal votes or amendments were taken during the session.