Lawmakers hear testimony on S.170 to pause PUC net-metering adjuster updates until 2028

A legislative committee heard testimony on S.170, a measure that would prevent the Public Utility Commission (PUC) from adopting new net-metering "adjusters" until the PUC's next biannual update in 2028, a step proponents said would ease the near-term impact of the federal residential solar tax credit's expiration.

Lindsay Kasby, legislative counsel, outlined the statutory framework behind the proposal and read the bill text: "The Public Utility Commission shall not adopt new renewable energy spread adjusters or citing adjusters prior to the 2028 biannual update required by rule 5.100." Kasby told the committee the provision is a session-law pause rather than a broader statutory rewrite and that the PUC currently follows a biannual evaluation process established in rulemaking.

Peter Sterling, introduced in the transcript as the director of Renewable Energy in Vermont, described how net-metering credits are calculated and how utility "adjusters" have affected homeowner payments. Sterling said the statutory process produces a statewide blended rate (testimony cited 18.3¢ per kilowatt-hour in the example used) and that utilities have applied negative adjusters (the panel cited a -4¢ adjuster) so that an example customer would receive roughly 14.3¢ per kilowatt-hour after the adjuster is applied. "So a couple people at home who wanna go solar then get paid 14.3¢," Sterling said in testimony.

Panelists and committee members discussed contract permanence — presenters said the adjuster attached to a customer's contract remains fixed for the contract term — and questioned how the PUC determines the size of negative adjusters. The presenters and counsel advised the committee to hear from the PUC directly for the commission's methodology.

Witnesses also framed the policy trade-offs the PUC assesses. Testimony summarized the Department of Public Service's typical calculation of a "cost shift," which counts bill credits plus so-called "lost sales" (reduced utility sales when customers generate their own power) as costs. Presenters argued that lost sales can reflect desirable efficiency and resilience benefits that the PUC's accounting does not fully quantify. "You're also not quantifying the benefit of solar home by there's less carbon being burned," one presenter said.

A separate presenter traced the federal tax-credit history and the practical effect of its removal on households. "In practical terms, 6 days ago, the cost of going solar in Vermont and every other part of this country for residential customers went up 30%," that presenter said, urging the committee to pause PUC adjuster updates to give the industry and the legislature time to assess market responses and gather data.

Committee members requested follow-up materials, including a table comparing the estimated cost for an average Vermont household to install solar in 2025 versus 2026. The hearing recessed for a break; the committee recorded no vote or formal action on S.170 during the session and scheduled an update from Jerry Duvall and the Energy Action Network for a later appearance.

The record of the hearing indicates the committee debated two paths: allow the PUC's upcoming review to proceed (risking further reductions to net-metering credits) or enact a temporary pause to observe market changes after the federal tax-credit expiration. No final committee decision or vote was recorded in the transcript.