Committee reviews Renewable Energy for Communities proposal and linked Clean Energy Standard

Vermont’s House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday, April 9 heard Department of Public Service staff describe H.289’s proposed Renewable Energy for Communities program and a linked Clean Energy Standard intended to limit rate impacts and help fund the new program.

The bill would direct the Public Utility Commission to establish a Renewable Energy for Communities (RE4C) program by rule or order, require retail electricity providers to solicit projects under that program and align eligibility with the renewable resources defined in Tier 2 of the state’s Renewable Energy Standard. Department staff said projects solicited under RE4C would generally be limited to resources smaller than 5 megawatts.

The measure’s backers told the committee they designed RE4C to prioritize community participation, reduce barriers for neighborhoods and households that have lacked access to renewable energy, and to encourage siting and ownership models that deliver benefits locally. "This proposal has been on the table for a long time," said Claire McLeveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager at the Department of Public Service, describing the program as grounded in an 18‑month public engagement process and best‑practice research.

Committee members were asked to leave program design details to the PUC. Under the bill text discussed in committee, the PUC would determine the percentage of each utility’s Tier 2 requirement to solicit through RE4C, set transparent selection criteria, identify reporting requirements and establish a schedule for regular solicitations. The bill language sets a target date for the PUC process to conclude "on or before January first of 2027," McLeveny said.

Department witnesses described several design features intended to balance equity and cost. Eligibility would track the Tier 2 definition, allowing distributed resources that connect to the distribution system and are under the 5 MW cap. The proposal also asks the PUC to consider carve‑outs or set‑asides for communities prioritized under the program’s environmental justice and frontline definitions. The department suggested including metrics and program reporting so the commission and legislative staff can evaluate whether projects are reaching intended beneficiaries.

Committee members asked several times about program cost. "We forecast that rates are gonna go up 18% by 2030," said TJ Poore, Director of Planning at the Department of Public Service, and added that the department wanted to avoid adding to those pressures without offsets. To contain costs the department proposed pairing RE4C with a Clean Energy Standard (CES) that would recognize nuclear generation as qualifying clean energy and thus reduce purchases of renewable energy credits needed to comply with statutory targets. The department offered a conservative savings estimate tied to that change — roughly $4 million per year beginning in 2030, which the department characterized as $15–$20 million over a multi‑year window — but staff stressed the estimate is preliminary.

Staff said they had not completed detailed financial modeling for the program and recommended a follow‑up technical analysis and stakeholder process. Poore and McLeveny said the PUC proceeding could include consultant modeling and targeted engagement; department staff estimated a technical and engagement analysis would likely be in the ballpark of $100,000 to $200,000, depending on scope.

Committee members also asked how RE4C would interact with existing programs, including the state’s Solar for All and other short‑term subsidy programs. Staff said federal or programmatic funding could be used to reduce RE4C costs but that RE4C is intended as a longer‑lived procurement mechanism so that benefits persist after time‑limited grants expire.

The department emphasized program flexibility: utilities would run solicitations on a regular cadence determined by the PUC, the PUC would adopt selection criteria that could include location, community benefits and workforce goals, and the PUC would identify reporting back to the legislature. Staff also described an alternative compliance payment (ACP) as a guardrail if solicitations attracted no qualifying projects in a given round; the bill directs the PUC to specify how to handle such outcomes.

Next steps described in the hearing included a PUC proceeding under the bill language (if enacted) to finalize objectives, percentage targets for each utility’s Tier 2 solicitation, selection criteria and reporting requirements. Staff told the committee they would return with further details as the PUC process and any required financial modeling proceed.

Ending: Committee members asked that financial modeling and stakeholder engagement be completed before the committee moved on final decisions. Department staff said they would seek to provide a PUC rulemaking schedule and refined cost estimates in follow‑up briefings.