PUC and utilities tell Vermont House committee H.716 would shift costs, complicate implementation

Representative Kathleen James opened the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee hearing on Feb. 25 to seek testimony on H.716, a revised bill that would change how Vermont sets net metering compensation and would create a new compensation/incentive category for batteries paired with net-metered solar.

The most immediate takeaway from the hearing was broad opposition from the Public Utility Commission and utility witnesses. "It would be hard for us to imagine, a bill that would more effectively transfer money from low and moderate income ratepayers to for profit companies and wealthier ratepayers," said Greg Favor, speaking for the PUC, who urged the committee to let the PUC’s biennial review process address the issues the bill raises.

Why it matters: H.716 would adjust how the state treats electricity generated and consumed behind the meter, add specific language about battery incentives and virtual power plants, and direct the PUC to consider new factors when setting compensation. Witnesses warned that statutory rate-setting or piecemeal changes to one part of the compensation formula could produce unintended rate impacts for customers who do not net meter.

Key testimony and claims

- Public Utility Commission: Greg Favor told the committee the PUC does not support the bill as drafted. He said the PUC already considers many of the proposed factors in its biannual review and questioned a proposed 50-megawatt-per-year storage target and the bill’s undefined reference to "third-party virtual power plant providers." Favor recommended the committee allow the PUC’s rulemaking/audit process to run its course rather than adopt prescriptive statutory language.

- Washington Electric Cooperative: Steve Knowlton, the cooperative’s president, said he "largely don't support the bill as written," echoed concerns that net metering today shifts costs to non-participating ratepayers, and cautioned that net metering ‘‘is not a particularly’’ fast or cheap way to meet large renewable requirements. He urged focus on policy-level goals and leaving technical rate design to the PUC and utilities.

- Vermont Electric Cooperative: Andrea Cohen and Lisa Morris testified the bill’s language is unclear about whether changes would be prospective, would effectively require hourly metering (rather than monthly netting) to compute behind-the-meter consumption, and could impose billing and automated metering infrastructure requirements that some utilities lack today.

- Green Mountain Power: Candice Morgan urged continued reliance on the PUC’s evidence-based biennial audit and noted other policy tools—tax credits or programs like ACRE (Affordable Community Renewable Energy)—could better target income-eligible customers without creating rate pressures for all customers.

- Vermont Supply Authority and DPS: Ken Nolan and CJ Poor warned the bill could undercut existing utility programs, create overlapping or conflicting incentives, and raise electricity costs in ways that could slow electrification of transportation and heating. The DPS said it is open to exploring compensation tied to wholesale value but cautioned against fragmenting the compensation framework without a full PUC proceeding.

Concrete numbers and practical limits

Witnesses supplied examples that shaped the committee’s discussion. Lisa Morris said a typical customer battery installation (two batteries) runs about $25,000 installed. Utilities and the DPS cited statewide net-metered additions of roughly 12 megawatts in 2025 and noted there are hundreds of megawatts of solar development overall; utilities also warned that a perpetual 50-MW-per-year battery goal would require thousands of residential battery installs and high incentives to meet that scale.

Implementation concerns

Utility testimony highlighted operational hurdles: Vermont’s net metering rules already include multiple adjusters (location, timing, grandfathering) and the billing systems and staffing needed to implement more granular hourly billing or a new battery incentive structure would add cost and complexity. Witnesses urged that the PUC and utilities are best positioned to analyze compensation and rate design through public processes.

Next steps

No vote was taken. Representative James noted the revised draft is posted and said the committee will continue to solicit input; additional witnesses were expected later in the morning. The committee recessed to take member briefings and scheduling checks.

The hearing record shows widespread concern among regulators and utilities that the bill, as written, could have significant distributional and administrative consequences; committee members signaled interest in identifying lower-barrier options to broaden rooftop solar access without creating large new rate pressures.