Vermont Electric Cooperative details community solar model, urges careful design for S.50 and successor programs

Vermont Electric Cooperative told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 3 that community solar can expand renewable access but that financing and equity must be built into any successor program.

Andrea Collin, who testified for Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC), summarized the co‑op’s community solar experience, described three existing projects in VEC’s territory and urged the legislature to be specific about financing and protections for low‑income households before authorizing a larger state program.

Why it matters

Lawmakers are considering S.50 (a narrow solar siting and registration bill) while the Public Utility Commission and Agency of Transportation have also proposed successor models for group net metering (a state report described a market‑based successor commonly called a "Reefer C" approach). VEC’s testimony addressed practical project design, resident participation and how to reach low‑income customers who are least likely to benefit from rooftop solar programs.

VEC’s community solar model

Collin described VEC as a member‑owned cooperative serving roughly 33,000–34,000 members across about 75 Vermont towns, with a membership skewed toward older households and higher energy burden in the northeastern parts of the territory. VEC decided to sponsor community solar to provide an alternative to rooftop net‑metering that would not cause cost‑shifts to nonparticipants and that could be sited where the grid could accept the generation.

The co‑op currently has three community‑scale projects totaling about 7 megawatts: a smaller site in Alburgh, a small project in Hinesburg and a larger 5 MW site in Grand Isle. Collin said VEC has sold or reserved a substantial portion of the array subscriptions and that the co‑op structures participation as a pre‑purchase: members "sponsor" panels up front and then receive a guaranteed monthly bill credit for the term of the subscription (currently a 10‑year subscriber term). "Think of it as like a vegetable CSA," Collin told the committee, describing the prepaid, recurring benefit structure.

Equity pilot and ARPA funding

Collin described a separate income‑qualified pilot funded with ARPA dollars and other grants: the pilot enrolled about 480 income‑qualified participants and was supported with roughly $6.7 million tied to an early Jericho landfill project and related grants. That pilot provides participating households with a fixed monthly bill credit (Collin cited the figure $45 per month) for a five‑year term; VEC said the program has low administrative overhead and that the first round of enrollments has proceeded quickly.

Subscription terms, siting and financing

VEC’s standard community solar subscription requires an up‑front payment in return for a monthly bill credit; Collin said that financing options such as on‑bill financing have produced low uptake and that many low‑income members do not use financing products even when offered. The co‑op’s subscriber term is typically 10 years; solar array contracts are often 25–30 years. Collin said municipalities and utilities should be able to guide siting decisions: "We can control where they're sited, where these projects are. We can know where on the grid it's gonna be most efficient." She also cautioned that policy designers must avoid cost‑shifting and should identify who will provide the funds if the policy requires discounted subscriptions for low‑income customers.

Comments on S.50 and a successor program

Collin supported several technical elements in the draft S.50: expedited registration for small ground‑mounted systems, and the PUC’s proposed 90‑day limit on REC assignment changes. On the broader successor program for group net metering (the Act 179 report), Collin said VEC appreciates the report’s market‑based principles but that the proposal lacked clarity on the money flow: "I don't think we're there yet because we're not seeing how the money ... works," she said. In short, VEC favored market‑based procurement and utility‑site emphasis, but asked lawmakers to specify funding sources, equity targeting, and implementation details before the committee adopts a comprehensive successor program.

What lawmakers asked and next steps

Committee members questioned Collin about siting near roads, whether disputes over adjacent properties are frequent, the proportion of VEC members participating in community/rooftop programs, and whether VEC would support administrative changes in S.50. Collin said disputes are not common in her utility’s experience, that community solar has had higher enrollment when grants or direct subsidies reduce or eliminate up‑front costs, and that VEC could consider renewing subscription offers when terms expire but would evaluate financial effects carefully.

Collin recommended the committee proceed in stages: resolve near‑term S.50 technical issues, then deliberate separately on a possible successor program to group net metering, giving time for implementation planning and PUC input. The committee did not take a vote; Collin and committee members agreed to bring additional parties back for further testimony.