Committee hears testimony on bill to raise expedited net-metering cap for ground-mounted residential solar

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee took testimony March 24 on S.50, a proposal to raise the size threshold that qualifies ground-mounted residential solar systems for the expedited net‑metering registration process from 15 kilowatts (kW) to 25 kW.

Proponent Peter Sterling of Renewal Energy told the committee the bill targets small, on‑site systems and would make it easier for homeowners who want to electrify their homes to install larger backyard arrays. “Net metering allows people to generate solar power for their own use and then send extra solar power to the grid from where they live and work,” Sterling said. He added modern panels are substantially more efficient than panels available when the original 2014 rule was written: “25 is the new 15,” he said, arguing the same physical footprint now yields materially more generation.

The bill would not change rooftop thresholds, Sterling emphasized. Under current Vermont practice, rooftop systems up to 500 kW use the fast application process; S.50 addresses only ground-mounted residential systems. Sterling explained the legal distinction the committee uses: ground‑mounted arrays over 15 kW today must go through the longer, more expensive certificate-of-public-good application process under 30 V.S.A. § 248, whereas smaller ground arrays use a registration/expedited process.

Sterling and members discussed practical effects. He said a 15 kW system produces roughly 18,000 kilowatt-hours a year, while a 25 kW system produces about 30,000 kilowatt-hours — numbers he used to show why many homeowners adding heat pumps and electric vehicles might prefer the larger system. He also told members the expedited registration route typically completes within 15 days and carries no additional permitting cost, while the full application can take months and cost $5,000–$20,000, according to testimony.

Committee members and Sterling discussed how the Department of Public Service calculates a possible cost shift from net metering. Sterling described two components the department uses: “lost sales” (energy produced behind the meter that utilities no longer sell) and above‑market energy purchases the utility must make. He noted that since 2021 residential net‑metering customers have also paid a negative rate adjuster on behind‑the‑meter generation (the testimony cited a 4¢/kWh adjuster), and that PUC compensation for net metering is revisited every two years.

Members asked about interconnection safeguards. Representative Samuels, a former distribution engineer, was told utilities receive immediate notification and have up to 10 days to flag interconnection safety or cost concerns under the registration process; utilities retain the authority to deny an interconnection on safety or reliability grounds.

Sterling and members debated incidence and distributional impacts. He shared a calculation using the Department of Public Service methodology that, even under a conservative assumption that all homeowners who chose a 15 kW array last year instead chose 25 kW, the statewide cost shift would amount to about $0.15 per year per household — a figure he called “overinflated” but used to argue the local benefits outweigh the modest systemwide impact.

The discussion also touched on market realities. Sterling said high interest rates in recent years reduced homeowner uptake by lengthening payback periods and that many homeowners size systems so loan payments approximate their prior monthly electric bills. He told members the committee should expect the PUC to begin its next net‑metering compensation proceeding in January 2027, with any new compensation rate effective in September 2027.

The committee did not take a vote on S.50 during the session recorded; testimony and questioning concluded with members thanking Sterling and noting several related PUC and department proceedings remain pending.

Ending: The committee will consider the PUC and Department of Public Service materials as it continues deliberations on net‑metering policy and the S.50 proposal. Members flagged that the PUC’s upcoming compensation review (beginning January 2027) could affect the economics underpinning residential net metering.