Developer tells committee ‘single‑plant’ rule adds cost and complicates siting for Vermont solar

A solar developer told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday, April 9 that Vermont’s long‑standing “single‑plant” rule raises project costs, complicates permitting and leads to undesirable siting outcomes.

"Single plant ... creates quite a bit of uncertainty," the developer testified, describing three principal concerns: uncertainty that raises project costs, direct additional construction expenses and unintended land‑use consequences that can spread arrays rather than concentrating them on preferred sites.

The witness said the rule can force developers to build redundant access roads and electrical lines. As an example, he described a Bennington parcel that already hosted a net‑metered solar array; when the developer permitted a second utility‑scale project on adjoining land, the PUC’s application of the single‑plant rule required a separate road and separate power line. "We're gonna have to put about a hundred thousand dollars of additional cost into that plant for absolutely no purpose other than complying with single plant rules," the developer said, and noted those costs flow into the power purchase agreement and ultimately affect ratepayers.

The developer suggested narrowing single‑plant constraints so they apply to traditional net‑metering installations rather than to market‑rate, utility‑procured projects. He explained that small ground‑mounted arrays under market contracts are uncommon because permitting, engineering and legal costs are similar regardless of project scale; as a result, most market projects the developer pursues are between 1 and 5 megawatts.

Committee members asked about other potential risks the developer’s suggestion might introduce, including whether narrowing the single‑plant rule would allow project proponents to avoid environmental review or public notice by slicing larger projects into smaller parcels. The developer recommended preserving single‑plant protections for net‑metered systems to prevent that kind of circumvention.

He also described broader project timing and supply‑chain constraints. From initial site work to producing commercial power, the developer estimated projects typically require 2 ½ to 4 years, including permitting and post‑permit filings. He said domestic panels remain small portion of the market, "Domestic panels, if you can get them, cost twice as much as foreign panels," and that panels make up roughly 20–25% of total system cost; labor, steel, inverters and transformers are major cost components.

The committee accepted the testimony and indicated staff would follow up; members did not take formal action during the hearing.

Ending: Committee members thanked the witness and asked staff to consider whether changes to the single‑plant rule would preserve public‑notice and environmental protections while reducing unnecessary cost and fragmentation of preferred siting areas.