PUC staff told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on Jan. 9 that the agency proposes statutory authorization to create a decommissioning fund to ensure nonutility generation sites are restored at the end of their useful lives.

"What we're really aiming at is restoring sites to their original condition," said Wes Goodmore, a staff attorney with the Public Utility Commission, describing the PUC's objective to finance removal of generation equipment and site remediation when a project is no longer economically viable.

Under Vermont's current process, developers estimate decommissioning costs and file financial‑assurance instruments — letters of credit, surety bonds or escrow agreements — with the PUC as a condition of their certificate of public good (CPG). Those instruments typically must be updated every three years for inflation. The PUC said a recent compliance audit found about "60‑65%" of facilities required to maintain these instruments were out of compliance.

Goodmore told the committee the PUC lacks clear statutory authority to accept and hold enforcement proceeds from financial instruments and has no established account or process to deploy funds if a developer defaults decades after construction. He said enforcing instruments against large banks or sureties could be legally and administratively complex.

To address those gaps, the PUC proposed creating a fund paid into up front by project sponsors, managed jointly by the commission and the treasurer's office, and invested conservatively (for example, tied to a federal bond rate). The fund would be available if a project defaults decades later; the PUC envisioned returning contributed principal and interest to project sponsors that perform decommissioning while retaining a portion of earnings as a contingency and to cover administration.

Committee members pressed staff on ownership of the funds and how interest would be used. Goodmore said models could either forfeit upfront contributions to the state and hold them in trust or structure a pool that returns funds to compliant developers. He said the fund proposal is intentionally high‑level; the statutory language the PUC provided would authorize the fund and rulemaking would determine contribution formulas and administration details.

Members raised practical concerns: the committee heard an example PUC filing estimating Shaftesbury Solar's decommissioning cost at $1,680,000 and asked whether a fund could be sized to cover large or unexpected overruns. Goodmore said the PUC anticipates engaging consultants to develop a uniform methodology for cost estimates and to build conservative contingencies into contribution formulas.

PUC staff said there are about 90–93 existing projects with decommissioning obligations and that no other state currently operates a statewide decommissioning fund of this type; several jurisdictions have municipal or private models. The PUC emphasized the proposal is intended to reduce taxpayer risk, increase certainty for developers, and create a centralized, transparent method for ensuring site restoration if developers default.

The PUC filed proposed statutory language for the fund with its report; the committee did not vote on the proposal during the hearing.