Representative pitches energy storage mapping, cost‑sharing for grid upgrades and renewed weatherization workforce

Representative Jim Maslin presented three related proposals to the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 27 focused on energy storage, distribution upgrades and home weatherization.

Maslin said one bill would direct electric distribution utilities and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to submit an electric system map showing where energy storage and flexible load management facilities would deliver the greatest reliability, affordability and resilience benefits. That report, he said, would inform the Clean Energy Development Board when awarding grants. “Electric energy storage has been around in Vermont for a period of time, and it's becoming more prescient,” Maslin told the committee.

A separate but related bill would allow the costs of some distribution‑level grid upgrades tied to specific generation projects to be socialized across customers within a utility’s service territory rather than borne solely by the project developer. Maslin said the approach is intended to reduce prohibitive upfront upgrade costs that can block proposed solar and storage projects, using a landfill solar project in Thetford as an example where interconnection upgrade costs had delayed development. He said the bill was drafted to socialize costs within service territories rather than statewide to keep the mechanism administrable.

Maslin also proposed a weatherization and workforce bill to fund training and staff for home weatherization work carried out by community action agencies and similar providers. He said weatherization — targeting gaps at foundations, attics and other leaky areas — can be a cost‑effective way to save energy for households that lack resources to make repairs. “Weatherization is frequently carried out by our CAP agencies,” Maslin said, citing Community Action Program providers as typical administrators.

Committee members pressed for concrete cost examples and for input from utilities and developers. Representative Howlett asked whether siting storage at a large landfill closer to load centers would avoid upgrades; Maslin replied the effect depends on local grid conditions and said he would ask project developers (named in testimony as North Solar Technologies and Vermont Solar Technologies) for cost breakdowns and examples. Representative Marmon noted ISO New England and utility planning documents have limited treatment of storage and load management in long‑range planning, and several members said declining storage costs and advances in load management increase the potential upside.

No formal votes were recorded on the bills in the Feb. 27 session; committee members requested follow‑up information, including developer cost examples and PUC/utility perspectives, before scheduling further testimony.