Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel delays final action on bill to rebate renewable‑energy fund to ratepayers, seeks updated fiscal note
Summary
Ways and Means put HB 1542 on hold for further analysis after lengthy debate over an amendment that would refund alternative compliance payments from the renewable energy fund to ratepayers. Agencies warned the change would cut grant programs and staff funded by the fund; outside advocates said the rebate would deliver negligible residential savings.
Representative N presented an amendment (0939H) to HB 1542 intended to clarify that alternative compliance payments deposited into the renewable energy fund be rebated to electricity ratepayers on a per‑kilowatt‑hour basis, and to preserve the Office of Energy Innovation in the statute.
Department of Energy legislative liaison Meg Stone told the committee the Department administers renewable portfolio standard compliance, collects alternative compliance payments and currently funds two $500,000 grant programs and nine full‑time positions from the renewable energy fund. She estimated that funds available to rebate might equal roughly $4–5 million in the coming year, and that per‑customer savings could be on the order of a few dollars annually (DOE offered a rough $3.90/month residential estimate in early analysis but said the exact figure varies).
Witnesses and outside groups pushed back. Nick Craig of the Conservation Law Foundation said returning the fund to ratepayers would deliver a minimal direct rebate — he estimated about $0.48 per month per residential ratepayer if calculated from the subset of payments funding the renewable energy fund — while eliminating programs that have historically supported municipal, school and low‑income renewable projects (the fund has supplied about $16.4 million for competitive grants over time). He urged interim study or further review.
Committee members raised a procedural problem: the fiscal note attached to the bill in committee reflected an earlier draft (as introduced), not the House‑amended language now in front of the committee. Department of Administrative Services/LBA staff explained LBA prepared the original fiscal note and the committee requested an updated fiscal analysis reflecting the amendment. Members asked for a revised fiscal note and agency assessment of how the amendment would alter the numbers before the committee takes further action.
DOE and DRA also flagged programmatic impacts: the amendment as discussed would eliminate funding for nine positions and remove money for two competitive grant programs unless alternate funding is identified. Several members said they would like an updated fiscal note and an agency assessment of long‑term impacts on ratepayer costs and on state economic development before voting.
What’s next: The committee paused final action and scheduled a follow‑up work session to review an updated fiscal note and agency analysis prior to any further vote.
Quotes: "We administer two competitive grant programs and nine full‑time positions funded through the renewable energy fund," Meg Stone said. Nick Craig told members, "Rebating the renewable energy fund to ratepayers will result in negligible benefits to the average residential ratepayer but would end programs that benefit schools, towns and low‑income communities."
