Local planners urge builder registry and flexibility as Vermont's draft energy plan tightens siting rules

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission staff and Planning Advisory Committee members on Dec. 8 reviewed the Department of Public Service's draft 2022 Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) and proposed edits to Act 174, pressing state drafters to clarify enforcement and to allow local flexibility on siting constraints.

Regina Mahony, Planning Program Manager for CCRPC, opened the discussion and said staff had prepared comments for the PAC to consider ahead of the commission's Dec. 20 submission deadline. Ann Janda, CCRPC Energy Project Manager, provided a focused presentation on elements of the CEP most relevant to the region.

Why it matters: the draft CEP sets statewide targets for renewable energy and decarbonization and proposes changes to Act 174's enhanced energy plan standards. PAC members warned that new mapping constraints (including proposed priority forest blocks and riparian areas) combined with steeper renewable targets could create difficult tradeoffs for towns in Chittenden County, which the presentation notes already carries a large share of the state's load.

Committee members pressed two related enforcement and feasibility questions. First, several members opposed adding a mandatory third-party Home Energy Rating System (HERS) review without alternative paths. "Perhaps instead of adding another layer of review for building code enforcement ... a better solution would be to train and license the builders and keep the responsibility with them," said Alex Weinhagen. Ann Janda confirmed the CEP materials call for a builder registry and education and said third-party reviewers would verify compliance at the start and end of construction.

Second, members raised concerns about land-use constraints and grid capacity. Darren Schibler suggested transmission and siting constraints be incorporated into enhanced energy plan maps and preferred sites work; Taylor Newton, CCRPC Senior Planner, proposed the Public Utility Commission consider geographic pricing to steer projects toward less constrained locations. Joss Besse asked "who is responsible for fixing this?" in reference to transmission capacity; Newton said VELCO is responsible for transmission, and that some infrastructure costs are regional (ISO New England) while others are state or distribution utility responsibilities.

Members also raised tenant and equity questions around weatherization and funding. Owiso Makuku asked how weatherization projects would be paid for and emphasized that "tenants should not have to bear the cost of weatherization." Staff said funding details were not yet clear and they would follow up.

On Act 174 edits, Paul Conner asked what a "not applicable" designation would mean for a state constraint; staff explained it could signal local pressure on land and would not prevent municipalities from acknowledging a resource. Members discussed confusion between the "highest priority forest blocks" and the "priority forest blocks" that appeared in later memos and maps; Melanie Needle (Senior Planner) said she would re-check the maps and follow up.

The commission also flagged the short timeline: CCRPC staff said they cannot complete a full alignment analysis of capacity constraints and priority renewable siting before the Dec. 20 comment deadline and will fold more analysis into the ECOS Plan update.

Next steps: Regina Mahony asked PAC members to submit additional comments as soon as possible for CCRPC's Dec. 20 filing. The presentation and staff notes are attached to the minutes.