Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Net Metering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee reviews Senate amendment to S.50 to allow one-time REC reassignment window
Summary
Representative Kathleen James briefed the committee on a Senate amendment to S.50 that would allow one reassignment of renewable energy credits within 120 days of commissioning and a one-time retroactive reassignment window for systems commissioned between Jan. 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025 if changed before Sept. 2, the committee was told.
Representative Kathleen James told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on May 7 that the Vermont Senate has added an amendment to S.50 allowing owners of net-metering systems a one-time reassignment of renewable energy credits (RECs) within 120 days of commissioning, and a retroactive one-time window for systems commissioned between Jan. 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025 if the owner requests reassignment before Sept. 2.
James said the Senate added the 120-day limit after discussion and that the additional retroactive window would permit owners of newer systems to request a single reassignment during the short transitional period. “A customer who owns a net metering system that was commissioned between 01/01/2023 and 07/01/2025 can change once if you do it before this coming September 2,” she said.
She told the committee that initial outreach indicated the Public Utility Commission and the utilities she consulted were generally willing to accept the change, and she said she would circulate the Senate’s amendment language and walk the committee through it at a scheduled meeting on Friday. Committee members asked for clarity on the bill’s effective date and how PUC would notify affected customers if the amendment becomes law.
Some members expressed concern about the retroactive nature of the window. One member said they do not favor retroactive changes because of potential unintended consequences for utilities and other downstream parties and warned that further back-and-forth between the House and Senate could jeopardize the bill’s passage. James said that if the House concurs with the Senate amendment the bill would go to the governor; if not, it could return to the Senate and risk running out of time.
No committee vote was recorded during the discussion. James said she would check with Senate contacts and with staff (including Betsy Anne) to confirm exact effective dates and circulation of the amendment language to committee members ahead of the next meeting.
The discussion focused on a narrow change to assignment timing and a limited retroactive window; committee members asked the PUC to clarify how many systems might be affected and how notice would be delivered if the amendment is adopted. The committee did not take formal action during this sitting.
