Committee reviews Draft 1.1 of S.65 strike-all amendment, removes energy storage references and updates fund language

A Legislative Council staff member reviewed Draft 1.1 of the committee's strike‑all amendment to S.65 on Feb. 27, outlining edits that add greenhouse gas emissions reduction to the bill's energy‑efficiency heading and remove references to energy storage and active demand management from several program lists.

The changes are intended to refocus the statute's language on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction rather than on energy storage, and to revise several cross‑references and fund definitions. "The changes in the draft from the bill is introduced are highlighted in yellow," said Ellen Chaykowski, Legislative Council, explaining the draft to the Natural Resources & Energy committee. She added that "the changes that are in this draft were the language that were that was presented by Peter Wach of Efficiency Vermont."

Why it matters: The edits affect how the public utilities commission would be authorized to propose, develop and monitor energy efficiency and conservation programs, and they change the statutory language that governs the efficiency fund and the priorities used when setting customer charges. That could affect which programs are prioritized for ratepayer funding and how the commission measures benefits for greenhouse gas reductions and consumers.

Major edits described - Heading and purpose: The draft adds "energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction" to the subsection heading for energy efficiency. - Removed program elements: Multiple passages that previously listed "energy storage" and "active demand management" were struck from the bill text. Chaykowski said those items "have been removed" from lists on pages 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 of the draft. - Cross‑references: The draft removes a cross reference to the Global Renewal Solutions Act (transcript reference: removal of the cross reference to 5 78/10 ESA 5 78) in several places so provisions now refer to "greenhouse gas emissions" without the earlier statutory cross reference. - Efficiency fund and charge language: The draft changes references from an "electric efficiency fund" to a broader "efficiency fund" and revises how the annual revenue is described: the annual revenue required from the electric efficiency charge would be "equivalent to the inflation adjusted, commission approved electric efficiency budget in 2026," replacing earlier language about total budget years. The draft also states that balances in the efficiency fund "shall be ratepayer funds" and that balances "are carried forward and remain in the fund at the end of the fiscal year." - Priorities and standards: The volumetric charge and program prioritization language was edited to remove the statutory citation previously cited (5 78) and to emphasize priority consideration for greenhouse gas emission reductions and consumer benefit. Typos and singular/plural consistency were also fixed in the draft, Chaykowski said.

Discussion and wording concerns Committee members asked clarifying questions about the scope of fuel references and wording clarity. On the proposed language about "electric, fossil, or biologic fuel sources," members questioned the phrase "biologic fuels," with one participant saying, "I don't actually think biological fuels is the right term," and suggesting "biomass" or simply "all fuel sources." Chaykowski summarized the committee's leaning toward simplification: striking the three adjectives so the clause would read "all fuel sources" without a requirement for proportional allocation of costs or cost savings.

Committee process and next steps Chaykowski said she had time scheduled until 9:30 a.m. and proposed the group "start with the changes in yellow, and then we can maybe circle back to if there are things that people wanna continue to edit beyond that." No final vote or formal action on the draft was recorded in the provided transcript.

The committee also confirmed that the language changes in Draft 1.1 largely reflect a proposal supplied by Efficiency Vermont, and that additional cleanup of statutory text (for example, reducing duplicated "shall" language) may require further reworking at a later meeting.

Ending Committee members agreed to begin with the highlighted edits and to revisit unresolved wording and structural edits at a later time; no formal adoption of Draft 1.1 was recorded in the session excerpt provided.