Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee reviews bill to let Burlington Electric spend thermal funds on weatherization and efficiency
Loading...
Summary
The House Energy committee considered draft language authorizing Burlington Electric Department to use its thermal energy and process-fuel funds over a multi-year period for programs that reduce fossil fuels and greenhouse gases, with at least 60% dedicated to weatherization and a priority for low- and moderate-income customers. Committee and the Department called the proposal a negotiated compromise; more testimony is expected.
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee on Wednesday reviewed draft committee bill language that would let the Burlington Electric Department use its thermal energy and process-fuel funds for a broader set of weatherization and efficiency programs, including measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Ellen Jankowski of Legislative Council said the provision is drafted as a standalone session-law authorization for an efficiency utility that also serves retail customers — language aimed specifically at Burlington Electric Department. The draft would allow the entity to spend its annually budgeted thermal energy and process-fuel funds over a multi-year performance period (noted in the draft as 2027–2029) on programs that reduce fossil-fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal and transportation sectors. "The entity shall also prioritize weatherization and thermal sector efficiency programs within its offerings…and shall budget at least 60% of the funds for programs under this section for weatherization and thermal sector efficiency," she said.
Darren Springer, general manager of Burlington Electric Department, told the committee the language represents "a compromise" reached with the Department of Public Service and includes department priorities while preserving some of BED's existing programs. "The compromise includes priorities around weatherization and thermal efficiency," Springer said. He described the arrangement as a way for BED to serve customers "regardless of their preexisting fuel source," noting BED's service territory has relatively few customers using unregulated fuels compared with other utilities.
Springer urged that the section be made effective on enactment so BED could update its planning filings with the Public Utilities Commission in advance of the next three-year performance period. He also described concrete program types BED would pursue under the flexibility, including continued support for geothermal test-well work and targeted incentives. "We're very supportive of the language as it's written," Springer said.
Committee members pressed witnesses on how the money is raised and how it interacts with other efficiency funding. Committee discussion and witness testimony clarified that the funds discussed are collected from state revenues such as forward capacity market auctions and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative revenues rather than the electric-efficiency charge that funds statewide electric-efficiency programs. Witnesses said thermal/process-fuel funds that are not spent in a three‑year period typically roll to the next performance period rather than reverting to the department; the proposed language would allow BED to expend the funds instead of leaving them to roll over.
Members also asked whether the funds could be used to augment incentives for electric-vehicle adoption and how such expenditures would be counted against Renewable Energy Standard (RES) tier 3 obligations. Springer and department staff said the expenditures under this provision would be calculated separately and would not be counted toward tier 3, though BED could use TEPF dollars to augment tier‑3 incentives. Springer cautioned that the compromise reserves 60% of the funds for weatherization and thermal-efficiency activities, leaving about 40% for other programs such as geothermal testing or incentive support.
The Department of Public Service, represented in the committee by Alec Nacek, director of the Energy Efficiency Resource Division, described the language as a workable compromise that acknowledges BED's unusual service-territory mix and said the department is comfortable with the balance. Nacek noted Efficiency Vermont has indicated it is not seeking to participate in this specific pilot going forward.
The committee did not take formal action on the provision Wednesday. Members asked for additional testimony from the Department of Public Service, Burlington Electric Department, and other stakeholders and discussed whether the change should be enacted on passage or have a later effective date. The committee also flagged a broader policy question: whether similar reallocations should be established in statute for all efficiency utilities or remain a session-law, time-limited pilot.
