PUC counsel urges caution on changing 'single plant' definition in solar bills

Jake, counsel for the Public Utility Commission, told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 1 that proposed changes to the legal definition of a “single plant” would limit the commission’s ability to treat co‑located or coordinated solar facilities as a single project for purposes of permitting, compensation and environmental review.

The topic came during testimony on S.50 and related language from H.394. "The single plant definition serves several very important purposes under Vermont law currently," Jake said, adding that the definition determines eligibility for financial incentives such as net metering and the standard offer program and sets capacity thresholds used in review procedures.

The commission’s testimony described repeated situations in which developers tried to segment a larger installation into multiple small registrations to gain higher compensation and streamlined permitting. Jake gave an example in which a single parcel hosted four 15‑kilowatt registrations that together totaled 60 kilowatts; under the registration rules those parcels received higher small‑system compensation and avoided more extensive environmental review and neighbor notice.

Those capacity thresholds matter across multiple statutes, the PUC said. The Renewable Energy Standard (Tier 2) requires in‑state projects of 5 megawatts or less to qualify for that category, Section 248 and related siting provisions use capacity to set setback and review levels, and simplified permitting under the statute cited by the commission applies to smaller facilities. Jake warned that the definition proposed in H.394 — and the version being discussed for inclusion in S.50 — would treat separately wired, separately metered arrays on a single parcel as separate plants, which would "circumvent the spirit and intent of Section 248 and allowing for public participation and review of those proposals." He said that would diminish the commission’s ability to determine setbacks, apply tiered RES categories, and require appropriate environmental review.

Committee members raised practical scenarios: shared access roads to adjacent gravel pits, later expansions on disturbed parcels, and different ownership of neighboring parcels. The commission said the statutory test already uses multiple non‑dispositive factors — ownership, physical proximity/contiguity and timing of construction — to distinguish a single project from separate ones, and that the commission applies those factors in its review. "If the legislature wants to make that choice, that's fine. But I just feel like we have to point that out, that we won't have the tools to review those projects the way that we do now," Jake said.

Members also discussed the registration threshold that S.50 would raise from 15 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts for the streamlined registration process. The commission explained that an owner with an existing 15‑kilowatt system could file an amendment and expand up to 25 kilowatts under the proposed S.50 language; it noted the change does not itself change net‑metering compensation rates. PUC counsel said compensation rates are set by separate rules and that the commission has not yet reviewed whether the economics between 15 kW and 25 kW would require altering the compensation bands.

Committee members who said the existing rules feel "uneconomical" to some developers argued the change would encourage on‑site expansion rather than forcing new disturbed sites. The PUC replied that its current rules already include incentives to prioritize lower‑impact and previously disturbed sites and that changes aimed only at residential‑scale relief should be narrowly targeted so as not to alter review standards for larger installations.

The PUC also asked the committee to consider reducing administrative burdens: it recommended removing the statutory requirement that proof of recording certain Certificates of Public Good in municipal land records be filed with the commission, saying the agency receives many filings and the compliance rate is low.

On the question of whether to move the H.394 language into S.50, Jake said the commission "would prefer to stay on the wall," indicating it favors leaving the broader single‑plant definition change out of S.50 and allowing further discussion. No formal votes or amendments were recorded during the session.

The committee scheduled additional testimony on S.50 and planned a session to review testimony and next steps.