House energy panel advances S.50 to raise net‑metering size to 25 kW, debates single‑plant definition and 10‑foot setbacks

Montpelier — The Vermont House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 15 tentatively agreed to amendments to S.50 that would raise the net‑metering project size threshold from 15 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts and create an expedited registration path for systems of 25 kW or less, while leaving a broad rewrite of the statute’s “single plant” definition for further work.

The committee’s legislative counsel, Ellen (Office of Legislative Council), told members the draft strike‑all amendment lists the changes the panel had already negotiated: “Section 1 is making the change, 15 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts, requiring that there’ll be an expedited registration procedure for systems 25 kilowatts in length in size,” and Section 2 directs the Public Utility Commission to update its net‑metering rules to reflect the new threshold.

Why it matters: Supporters said the change would let more small, customer‑sited solar systems use a faster registration process and reduce administrative burdens. The panel also agreed on setback rules and several procedural changes that affect title filings and customer options for renewable energy credits (RECs).

Key outcomes and details

- Net‑metering threshold and expedited registration: Committee counsel said the amendment would allow systems up to 25 kW to use an expedited registration process before rule updates are complete. The change matches language the Senate sent to the committee and was described as agreed by members.

- Setbacks: The draft adds a 10‑foot minimum setback for facilities with plant capacity less than or equal to 25 kW measured from the edge of a state or municipal highway and from property boundaries. Counsel clarified the setback is measured to “the nearest portion of a solar panel or support structure for a solar panel at its point of attachment to the ground.”

- REC assignment window: The committee reviewed language allowing a customer to change a decision to retain or transfer RECs “once in the 90 day period after the net metering system is commissioned.” After committee discussion of a public comment and timing of commissioning, the chair said she would update that period to 120 days for the next draft; members indicated general support for extending the window from 90 to 120 days.

- Land‑record filings: The amendment would change 30 V.S.A. language (referenced in the draft as 248a(7)) to require filing the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) in town land records but would strike the separate requirement to submit proof of that recording to the PUC. Counsel noted the documents would remain searchable in town land records and at the state online repository referenced in the draft.

Public comment

A Vermonter, Paul Unger, submitted written public comment describing an installation delay that moved utility interconnection beyond the 90‑day window. Committee members and staff clarified the statutory clock in the draft begins when a system is commissioned (interconnected to the grid), not when permits or a CPG are issued. That clarification informed the committee’s willingness to extend the change‑of‑REC window to 120 days.

Single‑plant definition and stakeholder concerns

The committee spent extensive time on a rewritten definition of “plant” (the so‑called single‑plant rule). The draft sought to separate how groups of facilities are treated for net‑metering and standard‑offer programs from how larger, market‑rate projects are treated, and it included language stating that “utility‑owned electric distribution and transmission lines shall not indicate facilities are part of the same plant.”

Greg Faber of the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) told the committee the PUC is open to improving the definition but urged a stakeholder process before codifying a new definition. Faber said the draft raises several practical concerns, including that a developer could file two adjacent 5 MW projects concurrently rather than one 10 MW project, which would alter agency review, municipal participation and how the Independent System Operator (ISO) treats the facilities for load‑reduction accounting. He recommended a convened stakeholder group to work through review, cumulative‑impact and interconnection questions and return recommendations to the Legislature.

Peter Sterling of the Department of Public Service told members the department posts net‑metering information online and that developers typically educate customers about REC options; he did not oppose committee consideration of the bill revisions and said the department would provide input.

Next steps

Chair Representative Kathleen James said she would mark sections the committee had settled as “done” and circulate a revised amendment reflecting the 120‑day REC window. The committee did not vote on S.50 during the April 15 meeting but indicated an intent to vote on the amended bill at a future meeting, and members asked staff to schedule follow‑up testimony from the PUC and DPS and to consider a stakeholder process for the single‑plant definition.

Statements

Ellen (Office of Legislative Council): “Section 1 is making the change, 15 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts, requiring that there’ll be an expedited registration procedure for systems 25 kilowatts in length in size.”

Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission): “We’re open to improving the definition of single. However, we think it should be done through a stakeholder process.”

Peter Sterling (Department of Public Service): “The Department of Public Service does have information about the Net Metering program on its website.”

Ending

The committee scheduled further work on the single‑plant language and expected to circulate a revised amendment for members before the next vote; the PUC and DPS said they would provide written comments and participate in further review. The committee also posted public comment from Paul Unger to its website and planned to notify him of the committee’s clarification about the commissioning date and the proposed 120‑day window for REC reassignment.