Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the C Pace Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee considers adding 'resilience' and stormwater projects to S.138 C‑PACE language
Summary
The Senate Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee reviewed amendments to S.138 to add C‑PACE language, debated defining 'resilience' (combining a broad Vermont definition with New Hampshire examples), and discussed explicitly including water conservation and stormwater projects as eligible resiliency improvements; the committee also agreed to replace 'assessed value' with appraised‑value language and scheduled a straw poll.
At a session of the Senate Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee, members completed a line‑by‑line walk‑through of S.138 and agreed to insert Commercial PACE (C‑PACE) language into the existing Residential PACE statute while adding a new subchapter on special assessments.
Chair Kathleen James said the committee was "adding C‑PACE language to the existing R‑PACE statute" and asked staff to draft a definition of "resilience" for inclusion. Members debated combining the broader definition used in the state's resilience implementation plan ("the ability of interconnected ecological, social, and economic systems to anticipate, adapt, withstand, respond, and thrive…") with a shorter, example‑based list from New Hampshire that enumerates ‘‘resiliency improvements’’ such as air‑quality measures, flood mitigation, energy storage and microgrids, alternative vehicle charging, and fire and wind resistance.
The committee also discussed whether to include a water‑conservation definition similar to New Hampshire’s language; members said adding water conservation — "measures, equipment, or devices that decrease the consumption of or demand for water" and projects that address safe drinking water or eliminate lead — would be consistent with the bill’s intent.
Members debated explicitly adding stormwater projects to the list of eligible resiliency improvements. One participant with loan‑underwriting experience told the committee that private lenders generally can exclude portions of an application they will not finance or include specific resiliency elements when underwriting permits, but recommended making stormwater eligibility explicit so projects are not left in doubt.
Committee members flagged a substantive drafting fix on financing caps: the bill’s 90% limit should refer to appraised value rather than assessed value. The group discussed three possible phrasings — "appraised value," "appraised value as complete and stabilized," or "stabilized value where applicable" — and agreed the draft should accommodate projects where "stabilized" is meaningful (for example, multifamily occupancy) while not precluding retrofits where stabilization is not relevant.
The committee asked staff to add or refine language that ensures infrastructure and physical systems are covered by the resilience definition and to explicitly mention stormwater where appropriate. Members also discussed stakeholder input, a proposed legislative report due by December 15, and possible third‑party administrator input.
The committee planned a straw poll on S.138 later the same day and agreed to forward agreed‑upon language to House Commerce for inclusion in the economic development bill.
What’s next: staff will circulate revised language incorporating the resilience definition, the appraised‑value change and the explicit treatment of stormwater; the committee will take a straw poll later today and forward the draft to House Commerce.
