Witnesses tell Natural Resources & Energy committee S.65 is a limited, cost‑focused update to state energy-efficiency law

S.65, a draft bill meant to reorganize elements of Vermont’s efficiency statute and fold electric and thermal efficiency budgets, drew testimony from program administrators who said the measure is a modest step to prioritize greenhouse‑gas reductions while maintaining consumer protections.

Peter Walk, a witness who identified himself at the hearing, told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy committee that “S.65 is a modest but important step forward” that can be implemented without changing the energy efficiency charge (EEC) collection mechanism or raising rates directly.

Walk told the committee the bill should explicitly preserve least‑cost planning language and avoid an explicit statutory tie to the Global Warming Solutions Act. He recommended striking a direct citation in the draft to “10 BSA 5 78” (as phrased in testimony) and instead using broader language tying program priorities to greenhouse‑gas emission reductions. He also urged removing language on demand management and storage from the statute and instead asking for a report from an existing PUC‑directed flexible load management working group.

Walk said efficiency programs and distribution utilities already operate several joint programs — particularly heat‑pump incentives and combined electrification packages — and that the proposed statutory cleanup should preserve coordination obligations. “We work very closely with the DUs now in a complex energy program environment,” he said, describing joint point‑of‑sale systems, contractor training and rebate processing that he said reduce administrative costs and improve customer experience.

He told senators the combined budget proposal in S.65 would merge electric and thermal budgets, but cautioned lawmakers to preserve a capped role for the EEC portion while allowing thermal (TVF/RGGI and other) revenues to fluctuate with market receipts. Walk recommended keeping a clear cap on the EEC collection while allowing supplemental funding streams to vary so that “if there’s more money collected, we want more good work to happen.”

Walk also addressed concerns raised in earlier testimony from distribution utilities and others about possible impacts to the renewable‑energy tier (tier 3) and least‑cost planning. He said the draft’s language is sometimes clumsy because it has to reference subparts of multiple statutes; his edits returned cross‑references to least‑cost planning provisions (referred to in testimony as “2 18 c”) and re‑inserted explicit coordination language reflected elsewhere in Title 30. He recommended several specific drafting fixes and said he would provide marked edits to legislative counsel.

Committee members asked about metrics and measurement. Walk pointed to department and third‑party potential studies showing continued opportunities for cost‑effective energy efficiency work even as electrification expands, and he presented historical charts (as part of his slides) showing declines in EEC nominal rates over recent years and cumulative customer bill savings from efficiency programs.

There was no formal committee vote recorded during Walk’s appearance; committee members and witnesses indicated legislative council would continue to work on language.

Looking forward, Walk said the program’s existing contractor networks and joint incentive structures are designed to scale and that the PUC’s oversight would remain central to harmonizing distributed‑utility programs and efficiency efforts if statutory cleanup proceeds.