Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Res Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VEPSA warns Hardwick faces costly REC obligations under state RES; Flatland solar recommended
Summary
VEPSA told the Hardwick commission the state's Renewable Energy Standard requires 100% renewables by 2035 with sub-tier obligations that make local tier-2 and tier-4 supply urgent; VEPSA recommended participation in a Flatland solar project to reduce exposure to alternative-compliance payments.
Get email alerts on the Res Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VEPSA staff briefed the Hardwick Electric commissioners on the municipality’s obligations under Vermont’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) and the practical choices the board faces to meet 2035 targets.
"Your obligation is going to be 100% renewable by 2035," a VEPSA presenter told the board, describing the law’s tiered structure. Under the current schedule VEPSA showed, roughly 30% of a member’s load will need to be covered by higher-value categories (tier 2 and tier 4) by 2035, with tier 2 (smaller distribution-connected resources) representing a significant share. VEPSA staff cautioned that missing tier-2 obligations could force a utility to pay large alternative-compliance payments (VEPSA cited figures in the mid-$70s per MWh for tier 2 in current modeling), making near-term procurement of qualifying local resources economical despite higher per-REC prices.
Hardwick commissioners discussed project options including a recommended Flatland solar participation, which would supply tier-2 credits but is still developer-dependent. VEPSA said some currently bundled contracts (e.g., Brookfield, Stson) provide tier-one RECs that create short-term banking surplus but those contracts expire end of 2027 and the board will have to replace expiring entitlements in a staggered way to avoid simultaneous shortfalls. The board asked VEPSA to continue modeling local participation options and the finance impacts of procurement versus potential ACP exposure.

