SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-03-27 9:00am

[Bram Kleppner]: Hey. We are live on YouTube. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alrighty. Welcome, everybody. It is Thursday, March twenty seventh, and this is the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. We are working on solar. So we're here today to hear from Senator Sanders, policy advisor on Solar for All federal funding program. So, Ethan, we'll just go around the room and introduce ourselves, and then we'll turn it over and [Melissa Bailey]: you can introduce yourself from the right place. Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: We also ask anybody who's visiting to introduce themselves if that's okay. So I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington Ford District. [Jack Locker]: Hi. Campbell from St. Johnsbury, Essex District. [Chris Morrow]: Chris Morrow, Wyndham, Wyndham, the Bennington District. Michael, Southworth, Calvonia two. Christopher. Howland, row four. [Gary Tory]: Gary Tory, Washington two. [Bram Kleppner]: Graham Cluttner, Chittman thirteen, Burlington. [Jack Locker]: Jack Locker, committee assistant. [Melissa Bailey]: Great. And I'm Melissa Bailey with the Public Service. [Chair Kathleen James]: Oh, super. You'll be joining us later. Okay. For the record, you are. [Ethan Hinch]: I'm Ethan Hinch with senator San Francisco, the climate policy assistant. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. And, so you you'll be, testifying today just for notes and then submitting written testimony as a follow-up? Yep. Great. Thanks. Well, we are here to learn about solar for all, so take it away. [Ethan Hinch]: Okay. So as I said, my name is Ethan Inch. I'm senator Sanders' climate policy adviser. I wanna thank you all for the opportunity to join you today. It's no great secret. Climate change is an existential threat to the entire planet. Unless we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy and energy efficiency, the planet we are leaving our kids and grandkids will become increasingly uninhabitable. That is why senator Sanders has worked for a number of years on a rooftop and residential solar program to cut carbon emissions, reduce working families' electric bills, create many thousands of good paying jobs. This program started as the bipartisan ten million solar roofs act, which senator Sanders introduced in two thousand eleven. It evolved into an unprecedented seven billion in funding for the EPA solar for all program, which senator Sanders successfully fought to include in the inflation reduction. The seven billion was included in the larger twenty seven billion greenhouse gas reduction fund, which also includes twenty billion for an EPA Green Bank program. With this seven billion, EPA is providing sixty grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits across the country to develop long lasting solar programs that enable low income and disadvantaged communities to install rooftop and community based solar. These recipients include forty nine state level awards, six awards to tribes, five awards to nonprofits for work that will cover multiple states. The BTA selected these recipients through a competitive grant process that awarded sixty two point four five million to the Vermont Department of Public Service, the most per capita funding of any state. Senator Sanders announced these awards alongside president Biden and former EPA administrator Michael Regan at the Prince William Forest Park on Earth Day twenty twenty four, almost one year ago. Days later, the senator met with governor Scott and then commissioner Tierney to discuss how to implement the program as quickly as possible and make Vermont a solar for all model for other states. Throughout the rest of twenty twenty four, Senator Sanders worked hard to move the state to quick action on this important program. Frankly, he was disappointed and frustrated by the department leadership's lack of progress on planning and implementing the program. Solar for all panels could be on Vermont rooftops right now if action had been taken. Unfortunately, they are not. Since the new year, the senator has been encouraged by public service commissioner Kirk Johnson's approach to moving the program forward. Senator Sanders have been very clear. Commissioner Johnson and the department's smart and capable staff must dedicate the necessary time and resources to planning and implementing Vermont's solar for all program as quickly as possible. Urgency is critical because time is of the essence. President Trump has made dangerous and unconstitutional moves toward authoritarianism, including illegally freezing the solar for all program for several weeks in January and February. While solar for all funding was unfrozen around February twentieth, The EPA's office of inspector general recently announced it will audit solar for all to determine the status of funds, top recipients, potential risks and impacts of the program. EPA administrator, Lee Zeltman, has been quick to allege waste, fraud, and abuse across a number of EPA grant programs. Senator Sanders remains concerned that the EPA will try to illegally terminate Vermont's solar for vault grant. If that happens, quick action by Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark will be crucial in blocking the Trump administration from illegally repurposing or rescinding this funding. However, the best way to protect Vermont solar for all program is to begin installing solar panels and saving working families money on their electric bills. Solar for all is a transformational program. It's going to create more than eight point seven billion in national electric bill savings over the lifetime of the program solar panels. It's going to reduce emissions equivalent to taking more than seven million cars off the road. It's going to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs. It's going to strengthen the resiliency of our electric grid. It's going to help working families break free from the power company by owning their electricity generation. It's going to create a very clear reminder right on Vermont's rooftops that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new energy generation, period. Senator Sanders is committed to working with the public service department and the Vermont legislature to move this program forward as quickly as possible to expand presidential solar, lower the cost of Vermont electric bills, and combat the existential threat of climate change. Thank you. [Jack Locker]: So looks like I understand you heard that himself. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Ethan, can you tell us can you can you, soar up to a hundred thousand feet and tell us a little bit more about, the kinds of so the just trying to recreate from your testimony. So, Senator Sanders sparked this funding at the federal level. It was included in the IIJA. [Ethan Hinch]: The Inflation Reduction Act. [Chair Kathleen James]: The Inflation Reduction Act. Yep. Vermont, I I presume, applied for you said it was competitive grade? [Jack Locker]: Yep. Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: So Vermont applied for and received forty two Six [Ethan Hinch]: two point four five. [Chair Kathleen James]: Sixty two point four five million. [Jack Locker]: Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: And and I know we're gonna hear from the department later and hear about I I'm sure we're gonna hear about a lot more about that work at the state level. But when you say that it funds residential rooftop, through what kinds of programs, through what I I'm having a hard time envisioning what sort of programs are funded. [Ethan Hinch]: Yeah. So Melissa can talk more about what the state has proposed in terms of specific programs. They put together a very good they put together a very good application, which is why they got the most per capita funding of any state. It's exciting. It's pretty broad. Mhmm. Taking the residential, in terms of community solar, you know, off-site serving households, it can be rooftop. And, you know, put together an application that includes both of those types of storage. [Chair Kathleen James]: And the residential, would that be in incentives, basically, to make it more affordable for individual homeowners? Is that okay. [Speaker 7 ]: This is correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, this is all targeted to low income. Low income is disadvantaged. [Ethan Hinch]: So, again, Melissa, I can tell you more about that, but low income is roughly eighty percent of area median income. There are certain areas that are designated by that were designated by Biden EPA's disadvantage. Right. That covers about eighty thousands more than eight thousands. There is a Vermont, mostly highly concentrated cities. [Chair Kathleen James]: And so let's talk a little bit more than about the status of that money now. And, again, I know and I've I'm feeling like I you know, I booked an hour for you. I never know how long things are gonna take, and then Melissa's not joining us until eleven. [Melissa Bailey]: So I wish I'd thought that through a little [Chair Kathleen James]: bit more carefully. It seemed right at the time. [Melissa Bailey]: Sorry. Do you hear James? Yeah. I just just I did talk to my colleagues at the department, TJ Poor. I think about your ten o'clock slot. He is. To shifting if that is helpful to the committee. Whatever order you want, possibly. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Let's finish with Ethan, and then maybe it it seems to make a lot more sense. Is that okay with everybody? We'll just if TJ can come later. Okay. Great. Then we can just talk solar panel. Andy Perchlick is coming in later, but I think he's gonna talk about only the Clean Energy Development Fund. Jack, can you make sure you reach out to senator Perchlik? Yep. Let him know we're changing our schedule, and we'd still love to have him come in this morning, and he can just talk about the Clean Energy Development Fund. And I I think that was what the direction I sent him off in anyway. Okay. So okay. Sorry. Thanks, Ethan. Back to you. So so the status of the funds now at the federal level, I know it was frozen for a couple weeks, And now what? [Ethan Hinch]: Now it's unfrozen. [Melissa Bailey]: Okay. [Ethan Hinch]: For the time being, the EPA is performing an audit of the program. [Jack Locker]: It's not to say exactly what that means. [Ethan Hinch]: So it's not really a standard for when the audit involves with federal agencies. And, frankly, the Trump administration is breaking all the norms. So it's really tough to predict what that audit will actually look like. [Chair Kathleen James]: Was this intended to be sorry. It it's a one time it's a onetime shot. Right? This is a a big a onetime infusion of federal dollars. [Ethan Hinch]: Yep. So it's a five year program. [Jack Locker]: Five year program. [Ethan Hinch]: But it is just the sixty two point four five. That's the award to be spent over five years. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Rev Kleckner? [Bram Kleppner]: And the cash is sitting in DC now. It hasn't been drawn into Vermont yet? That's right. [Ethan Hinch]: It's been obligated. We'll see if we can talk more about this. But the EPA has signed a grant agreement with the Vermont Department of Public Standards. So there is a legal contractual obligation for the EPA and the Vermont or the US partner of Treasury to pay Vermont for certain activities related to solar for all, but the mine is physically in the US Treasury. [Speaker 8 ]: Okay. [Chair Kathleen James]: I was glad but not surprised to hear you say that commissioner Johnson had been bullish. I had big conversations with him. It sounded like he was excited about this program and wanted to, you know, see what we can do. So should we yeah. Perhaps Southport. [Chris Morrow]: Considering the risks to first responders, is this only rooftop solar? [Ethan Hinch]: This is rooftop and community. It's not just rooftop. [Chris Morrow]: When you say community, does that exclude individual homeowners from doing ground mail? [Ethan Hinch]: That's a decision that the public service department [Jack Locker]: will be making as they plan the program. K. K. [Ethan Hinch]: It's not excluded by the EPA. Okay. [Jack Locker]: Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: Anybody have additional questions for Yes. [Speaker 8 ]: Wasn't there some issue with this community solar type of arrangements that were somehow I'm gonna use the term prohibited from continuing developments. So I I see gears aren't quite meshing. [Chair Kathleen James]: Gears are not quite meshing in terms of community solar in Vermont right now. [Speaker 8 ]: In respect to sixty three million, sixty two, whatever, million of of rooftop. And then this is money slated for less affluent population and and so forth. So his era per per person per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per site development to the individual homeowner or the individual? Yeah. The individual that's applying as a [Jack Locker]: All that's that are quite interesting. So so [Speaker 8 ]: is there a a dollar limit in Per person. Per person or per per staff. I call it per per per location, per rooftop. And and I'm making the assumption that the because it's to the individuals that that it's an individual rooftop belonging to a resident, not a business rooftop. [Ethan Hinch]: So it will be just for households, to benefit household electric bills. There's not a per individual limit on the program, but the balance between helping fewer individuals more install bigger systems or more individuals sold smaller systems that the public service department is working on to decide what the best balance is to benefit. It wasn't kind of disadvantage for monitors. [Chair Kathleen James]: Maybe we should bring Yeah. Yeah. Maybe we should bring Melissa up because I I'm I assume she's the expert on the yeah. [Jack Locker]: I have another. That'd be good. [Bram Kleppner]: Are there other states in which deployment has happened more rapidly? [Ethan Hinch]: Deployment, there are some states that have existing programs and existing community solar programs, and they've been able to move a little bit more quickly because of that. Yeah. But this funding really is unprecedented, especially setting up rooftop solar programs, which is part of what the Vermont Public Service Department is doing. It's something that's taking some time. Yeah. [Jack Locker]: Let's see. Are are the elements of installing a rooftop solar or or ground mount or community solar, are there elements sort of up to the public service department to determine, or are there parameters in the in the in the law that that you can talk about? It's relatively broad. For example, maybe power upgrades or, you know, whatever, electrical upgrades in people's homes or any, you know, things like that. [Ethan Hinch]: Yeah. So they we we designed the federal program that pretty broad eligibility in terms of roof upgrades, you know, electrical upgrades because solar looks different in different parts of the country. And this program really was designed to be solar for all. So we want the federal money to work in different regions. So really that's [Jack Locker]: up to the service department to figure out those details. That's right. Good. Thanks. [Chair Kathleen James]: Coincidentally. Happily. Yeah. Happily. Melissa, are you can you join us? Sure. Yeah. Thanks for being flexible. Sure. Yeah. So [Gary Tory]: Yeah. Just [Chair Kathleen James]: Ethan, thank you so much. [Melissa Bailey]: Are you able to stick around [Chair Kathleen James]: a little bit in case they then have more federal questions? [Ethan Hinch]: I can. Operator, but then [Melissa Bailey]: Super. [Jack Locker]: Do you think? [Melissa Bailey]: I don't have the link. I do have some slides to share. Great. Moment Did you send that? [Speaker 8 ]: I'm sending it right now. Okay. [Melissa Bailey]: I'm not sure. You wanna hundred percent of my emails? Or [Speaker 7 ]: Right. [Jack Locker]: I have printed slides downstairs [Melissa Bailey]: to go around for you. Oh, okay. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. [Speaker 8 ]: May I Yeah. [Melissa Bailey]: Hi, Melissa. Hi, Brian. Representative. [Bram Kleppner]: I apologize for not recognizing you. I've only ever seen you on Zoom. I we've never met in person. So True. [Jack Locker]: So Hello. Nice to see you. Welcome to our committee. [Chair Kathleen James]: No. I'm not. This is your first appearance here. We do have a Mug competition. Mug competition going on, which you may or may not have heard of. Frequent testifiers are in the running for a mug, and TJ is right now our lead. We're gonna try to get one of those racetrack graphics so we can move the cars along with I'm I'm surprised to hear that. TJ right now is he's in the lead. We have multiple prizes to give out. Ethan, I'm sorry. You are probably [Speaker 9 ]: No. You're you're [Chair Kathleen James]: probably not in the running. [Bram Kleppner]: You're you're just getting off the starting line. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Exactly. [Bram Kleppner]: You may have a lot of time on track. [Chair Kathleen James]: I'd be hard to catch up. Yep. [Jack Locker]: Okay. Along [Bram Kleppner]: with TJ, Jared and Rich Coward are also on the leaderboard. [Melissa Bailey]: Secretary Moore. [Bram Kleppner]: Secretary Moore is [Chair Kathleen James]: at Jane Lazorchak. Yeah. Who else is? That one. L o Allen. [Gary Tory]: So She's not a [Chair Kathleen James]: to get it on her. Yeah. Allen. Thank you. Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: I think Maria. [Bram Kleppner]: She's in her office. Oh, got him. [Melissa Bailey]: I need to order [Chair Kathleen James]: a third box of box. [Speaker 8 ]: Yeah. The party is still first. [Chair Kathleen James]: Box two is couldn't possibly arrive this week. [Melissa Bailey]: Alright. I have the link. Should we just go ahead and not worry about Let's [Chair Kathleen James]: just not worry about it. We we all have hard copies now. So and they'll be posted or are posted, probably. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. I do. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Okay. For the record. [Melissa Bailey]: Hi. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Bailey. I'm the director of the state energy office, the Vermont Department of Service. Thanks for having me in, and I do hope I get an invitation back so that I can enter into the mock competition. Happy to be here, and it is my first time in this committee this year. It took me a few minutes to find you all. I've been up down to the mezzanine, up to the third floor. All Sorry about that. [Chair Kathleen James]: No. No. No. Also. Yeah. [Melissa Bailey]: So I'm glad to be here. Are they still [Bram Kleppner]: No. It's been my failure to recognize there were two different algorithms. [Melissa Bailey]: I didn't mean there's So we'll k. Send it [Speaker 10 ]: back to the other [Chair Kathleen James]: And, Melissa, we we now have plenty of time. So and we're meeting with questions. So [Melissa Bailey]: super No rush. Sounds good. I do have quite a bit of information on the slides. Happy to take questions as we go. So just by way of introduction, I've been in the role of the state energy office director for just about a year. Prior to that, I was the director of efficiency and energy resources at the department. Been there a total of three years and my background is in energy efficiency and utility programs. And folks know I'm sure from TJ's testimony, the public service department represents the public interest in water, wastewater, electric, and telecom proceedings. We also complete comprehensive energy planning for the state and are designated as the state energy office under Department of Energy's state energy program at the federal level. And I mentioned that the the SEO role has really expanded over the past couple of years due to the influx of federal funds under the Inflation Reduction Act and IIJA and was set up as a unique division within the department just about a year ago by commissioner Tierney. So I have a staff of, I think, seven, eight on paper, but two vacancies right now. So, we're trying to recruit really good people to do this really important, critical energy work and affordability work in Vermont. So slide two. Let me just get to my slides. This one's a bit of an eye chart. I'm glad that you do have paper copies here. This is just to give you a flavor of the breadth of federal funds that we are administering currently. So they're divided into a handful of programs that came through under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Again, another wave of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act. And then other, just as a reminder, we're still administering the ARPA funds that came through several years ago. There are some really important climate and affordability programs being implemented there. There's a congressional, congressionally directed spending earmarked from senator to senator's office as well to promote renewable heating in in schools and municipalities. So, you know, our smallest funding pot is about a million dollars, and then we're gonna talk today about, kind of the biggest pot, which is the sixty two and a half million under solar for all. But this is the breadth of of programs we're offering mainly in the form of grants to utilities, nonprofits, and municipalities and schools. Listen, this [Chair Kathleen James]: slide sorry. These are all there. I I'm just looking at it. Authority BIL, these are all federal [Melissa Bailey]: funds. Right? Okay. [Jack Locker]: For the [Melissa Bailey]: most part, federal funds. I mean, there is this this ARPA switcheroo to general funds that Right. Happened at the end of last year. So technically not federal funds at the bottom line, but the vast majority of this is is federal funding. [Chair Kathleen James]: So what's what's BIL? Sorry. [Melissa Bailey]: Sorry. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Oh, that's I I J I L. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So that's IIJA. Yep. And then we have the Inflation Reduction Act, and then we have other. And I'm seeing a lot of these are federal funds, as you mentioned, except setting aside the ARPA of the GFA. And there's solar for all at the sixty two million. Okay. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. I have a question. Yeah. [Chris Morrow]: Can you just define conditional for me? Yes. [Melissa Bailey]: And that's where I was gonna go next. So, yeah, in terms of the certainty around the federal funding and all of the uncertainty of risk at federal level, awards that were so there was a rush not a rush. The Biden administration moved expeditiously to get funds appropriated and obligated before the change in administration. Some of those awards were made conditional, which does mean that we need additional agency approval at the federal level to move forward. So the three awards here, the award production excellence that are listed as conditional, those are currently on pause. We don't have access to those funds. And the Department of Energy, which is our granting agency for all of our funds except for solar panel, is not engaging with grantees on, on those awards. So the most significant there is the HEER program, which is, home electrification and appliance rebates. That went along with the homes program. Those are home energy rebate programs to, help folks improve the efficiency of their home and electrify. So one award we were given nonconditionally and we're moving forward with. But, again, that second one focused on electrification as a conditional award that's on pause. Same with our contractor training and our building code money. Folks ask all the time which funds are most risky, where do you have security? As Ethan alluded to, it's unprecedented times at the federal level. But right now, the biggest risk factor we see is the ones that are conditional awards where we can't move [Speaker 8 ]: forward. And, [Bram Kleppner]: hence, have you given you any sense of when they will start engaging with grantees, or is it just all of them? [Melissa Bailey]: No. It's, you know, it's a really path reply in email or verbally that is like, we're not negotiating at this time. We will let you know when things change. I'm not authorized to speak to you about that. That's the kind of language that we're hearing. Got it. And, of course, there have been any introduction enforced, so a lot of our project officers are in their positions any longer. Yeah. [Jack Locker]: The end date that's noted, do funds have to be expended by that date, or is that in terms of funds have to be covered by that date? [Melissa Bailey]: That would be expended by that date. So yeah. [Jack Locker]: That's how I'm looking at next next to the bottom line there about energy building, tool support, and staffing. [Melissa Bailey]: Oh, so that one in particular, yeah, SEP formula grant, the second to bottom, we get three year awards from DOE on a regular basis. So that's not one time funds, and that just means that we're about to end our this current three year award. And we do expect to get a new three year award. It's about three hundred thousand per year that the Department of Public Service gets a formula award from DOE. Does that make sense? [Jack Locker]: Three hundred thousand. Oh, I see. It's thirty per year. Right. It might [Melissa Bailey]: have been a little bit more that year. But three to four hundred thousand and it really supports our staffing and again our energy code work which is not funded elsewhere. And Right. Yeah. So it's similar to the way the weatherization assistance program just gets annual funding. So those appropriations are up for discussion at congress, like, currently. And we're hoping that they continue. Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Maybe I'm I'm really interested in this chart. I wish I might ask you to just talk about the status of federal funding. Do you wanna move through your slides and stay focused on solar for all? And then if we have time, maybe we could come back. Would you be prepared to walk us through the chart in a little bit more detail? Sure. It's interesting. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Alrighty. So onward we go on solar, but if we have time to come back, I'd love to. Sure. Okay. [Melissa Bailey]: So, yeah, as I mentioned, you know, that's the just to give you a flavor of the breadth of of programs that we're administering. And, again, the department remains, like, laser focused on affordability and helping low income, moderate income, and disadvantaged households through the energy transition away from fossil fuels and into decarbonized technologies. So moving on to, I guess, my third slide here, the area of focus for today is Vermont Solar for All Award of sixty two and a half million. Again, we applied for a hundred million and most grantees were awarded ultimately awarded less than the application. We are, of course, extremely appreciative of Senator Sanders' efforts to kind of materialize this funding and to get this included in the Inflation Reduction Act, as Ethan mentioned, kind of unprecedented funding here to direct, funds for solar to low income households at a national scale. And Vermont did not previously have, a specific low income solar program stood up. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Rep. [Chris Morrow]: Could you explain the sixteen million dollar difference between the award and at least forty six and a half benefit sentences? [Melissa Bailey]: Sure. So that would be the administration of the program, of course, at the department's level as well as through our subgrantees. And then this workforce development component also would not be an incentive. So the incentives are and I believe that's I don't know. By program people, I think that's seventy five percent is the requirement that some that that amount of the funds actually be applied as a reduction in cost of purchasing solar energy. So direct incentive as opposed to, program administration. And that's that's typical [Speaker 8 ]: across programs. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. And you'll talk a little bit about what these different programs are? [Melissa Bailey]: Yep. I'll get into detail of each of the programs. It's just that we plan to roll out kind of three unique, sub programs to reach different market segments of low income households, predominantly, you know, renters, homeowners, and then, tenants of affordable housing, specifically designated, affordable housing. And then, EPA did include funding for workforce development with the recognition that we really need to make sure we have a trained workforce, so both solar installers as well as electricians to kind of complete this work, at people's homes and and off-site. So my next slide, number four, shows kind of the EPA requirements with which within which we're developing our programs here in Vermont. As Ivar mentioned, solar for all is one component of the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the twenty seven billion dollar program, and seven billion of that was awarded to, sixty grant recipients to to stand up or continue solar programs. Our firm is focused on, there are a few definitions of low income that are, available to use under, EPA's program. We're focusing on households below eighty percent of air in the unit income. That's what, Vermont typically uses across energy programs for eligibility in low income programs. It's roughly equivalent to two hundred percent federal poverty level, which is one of the income thresholds. Those two typically tie in Vermont with the parent household size and location. The biggest requirement under the Solar for All program is the twenty percent utility bill reduction for participants and that's, of course, the electric bill. So we need to generate roughly twenty percent of savings for households that participate through the program. EPA also has a goal of, again, workforce development, developing good high quality jobs, list of federal requirements with which we need to comply, Build America, Buy America, Davis Bacon, NEPA, etcetera. We need to design our programs to be compliant with all of those unless there are waivers. And, of course, there are volumes of quality assurance and reporting requirements that come along. These are just the strings that come with federal funding. [Chair Kathleen James]: So for the low income recipients, the idea is that the federal grant funding will cover entirely or heavily subsidized the upfront installation cost, and then they will see an ongoing twenty percent saving on their electric bill every month. That's the general gist. A minimum of twenty percent. [Melissa Bailey]: That meant just and and that incentive level, right, can be toggled so we can give a higher [Chair Kathleen James]: savings. Sliding scale? [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. I think we probably would use one instead of level when we develop once we finalize the program design, but that's something we're engaging with customers about right now is how much of a benefit would it need would need to be delivered to make you interested in this program, for instance. Is twenty percent enough, or do we look at a more robust benefit? Again, we're talking about buying down the cost rate at at the outset, so a ten thousand dollar cost. Do we cover half? Do we cover three quarters? Because under the model that we're contemplating, then the customer would have a loan payment for a certain amount of time or a lease payment for a certain amount of time. And the savings on their electric bill would need to offset more than offset that loan payment. Right? So that in a net basis, they're saving at least twenty percent. But the exact incentive level has not been set, and we're soliciting input from potential participants on that. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So the loan payment versus the savings, there needs to be an overall savings of more than twenty percent. More than twenty percent. Right. [Melissa Bailey]: I can't give you a twenty percent on your bill and then and then hit you with an with a payment that gobbles all of that up. [Jack Locker]: Are are you working with utilities to make this an on bill thing that happens so that people aren't aren't looking at a at a a separate loan payment, which might be a real early bill if that's not even? [Melissa Bailey]: We have not contemplated putting the payment for the solar on the bill. For the specifically, for the single family program, they would be using the net metering mechanism, so they'd be receiving that reduction on their electric bill. But we have not contemplated putting the financing on the electric bill. And we I don't think the utilities have interest in being the financer. We do plan to engage, like, with a finance partner to offer that loan product. [Jack Locker]: I'm thinking of the HFA's rep program where they are working with the total mix to need to do fix to tie Yeah. Load to the electric meter. [Melissa Bailey]: Yes. With money VHFAs. I Yes. I helped set that program up. It is a possibility, and I will take make note of that. I think it's probably something worth talking to. We're conducting folks focus groups with potential participants, and I and I think it's probably worth, it's a great point. It's probably worth raising with folks. Is it a barrier to have two separate loan payments? Yes. We think it might be how much of a barrier? And then, of course, the flip side being, is that worth us then going to negotiate with the utilities to get that wrapped? It'd take a few years to set up. I I helped put the utility end to do that. Right. And we are hearing urgency to deploy as well. So that's just Great. [Jack Locker]: Well, I mean, I'm I'm very thinking that with with reps set up, maybe that, you know, Greece and the skits a little bit. And, also, I'm thinking about how difficult it is to to to get people in this income group to be willing to even consider taking out one of this regardless of the, you know, the benefits and the cash flow and and the infrastructure. It's just you know, something that that that people just won't touch. [Chair Kathleen James]: From software? [Jack Locker]: Thank you. [Chris Morrow]: Do you envision any upfront costs not covered by any of this to the people? [Melissa Bailey]: So we there will be we don't we don't anticipate paying the whole cost of the solar system. So, there would still be a remaining cost. We expect most people would finance that or choose to do a lease where there's not an ownership for the end. We're also engaging with potential participants about is there a use case where folks think they might buy the system outright and not finance it, not take out a loan. In terms of upfront cost, we're going to design the program so that there does not need to be any outlay of, funds at the outset by production. [Chris Morrow]: So it won't affect, their personal funds to start into this program? [Melissa Bailey]: Right. They should be able to start with no money upfront, and we're still exploring, are there people who, for whatever reason, would prefer to purchase the system right away and not finance? That's that's an unknown for us right now. [Jack Locker]: Thank you. [Gary Tory]: So, Troy, just on the wrap program, my understanding is that it stays with the meter. So, like, even when you leave the home and Yeah. And sell it, the next occupant keeps that investment and keeps paying it off. And this and so maybe that [Melissa Bailey]: could work with solar as well. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. It's a real selling, I think. I mean, I I know I know Ravin's had a hard time getting getting going, but I think that that is understandable because we need to these new programs just take a while to get get going on a similar one that's affordable for a thousand. And it takes it takes it takes time. You can throw all kinds of money out, and it just takes time or a pipeline to to sort of build. And I think when when I when I I was working at the at Capstone studying after these thermal. Initially, one of the dimensions of that program was to include a single family component as well, But but we gave up on that because it was just it was just two difficulties to get people to and, again, in the same income loop to to consider taking a loan of of any sort for any reason. [Melissa Bailey]: Yep. No. You're absolutely right. Folks are debt averse, and our goal in setting up this program is to eliminate or reduce as many barriers as we can for participation. So the unbilled financing is is something we should certainly explore. And, yes, RAP has been challenged, but, it's a great opportunity, for infrastructure investments in the home to be financed over a longer period of time, and he's gonna stay with the meter as you've heard of mentioned. What's RAP stand for? [Jack Locker]: Weatherization repayment assistance program. [Melissa Bailey]: Yep. Okay. So moving on to the timeline, which takes two slides here, slide five and six. They show the program planning timeline from the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act through launch. Again, we completed our application back in twenty twenty three in the fall and were notified that we would receive an award last April. That does not mean we received the funds. That was a notification, and and the amount, again, was, lower than our application for a hundred million, and it was, we were awarded the sixty three million. So just looking at where we are now, EPA was under a statutory requirement to obligate funds by September, which they moved to do. And that's when we actually began our period of performance and were able to spend the solar for all funds. So we received access to the funds in September. I would take issue with the assertion that we could have roof solar on roofs now given the constraints we were under with EPA and the necessary approvals before we actually drew down funds. So We do remain in a planning period. We worked in the fall to finalize our EPA work plan and budget with the reduced funding amount that was from what was in the application. Received that for the end of twenty twenty four and have submitted a revised work plan and budget to EPA and kicked off the planning year in January, which is the period that we're in right now. We do have up to a year to plan and finalize programs and seek final EPA approval. We don't know that it will take the full year, and we do have we have clarified with EPA that individual subprograms that I'm gonna talk about in a minute can come out of the planning period and can launch individually. We don't need to wait for all three subprograms to be finalized. So we'll be able to launch as we are ready. [Speaker 7 ]: Did you say you've already drawn down some [Melissa Bailey]: of the funds? We're drawing down funds now for staffing. [Speaker 7 ]: And that's As funding that's available? [Melissa Bailey]: Yes. There was yeah. My next slide at these obstacles. But, yeah, there was a pause where the funding wasn't available, and now it's available again. And so we're doing monthly draws to the federal system for our staffing costs. I mean, those are pretty small relatively. Right. We've run around a thousand that we've drawn, but we are able to access the funds, which [Bram Kleppner]: was You [Speaker 7 ]: can't draw down all sixty two [Melissa Bailey]: Cannot draw down all sixty two million. [Speaker 7 ]: That's unfortunate. [Melissa Bailey]: It's it is. Yes. I meant to mention that these are on a reimbursement basis, so we can draw down funds once we've expended them. We cannot draw down in advance. [Chris Morrow]: Yes. Five year plan. Five year draw then. [Melissa Bailey]: Yes. Five years. We have five years to spend the funds. [Bram Kleppner]: You should ask the treasury to escrow the funds. No. I have a question an actual question. This hundred million dollar proposal that you put in, different from the hundred million that the climate action put in, just happens to be the same dollar amount? [Melissa Bailey]: Yes. The [Bram Kleppner]: one that was a single state one that [Melissa Bailey]: Climate, CBE reduction grant that was not at all. One of us. That was us. That is unfortunate [Bram Kleppner]: Very. [Melissa Bailey]: Separate hundred million. [Speaker 10 ]: Okay. Thank you. [Melissa Bailey]: So where we are in the timeline now, we've just submitted our quality assurance program plan and quality management plan to EPA and we're conducting outreach and engagement. Again, as I mentioned, we'll to potential participants. So, you know, actual low income tenants and homeowners who might participate in this program as well as program partners, utilities, finance agencies, solar developers, and other folks who have input on program design. And again, we will be deploying, certainly by January and hopefully sooner, specifically for the RAISE program, which I'm gonna talk about in a moment, which is our single family program. This just gives a sense of the overall timeline that we are looking at. Oh, that is out. Can you [Gary Tory]: hear me? I'm sorry. ACRE sounds really familiar to me. Is that an existing program? [Melissa Bailey]: Yes. So ACRE builds up an ARPA program, a program that was initially started with the utilities with ARPA funds and and is currently active. So we actually feel a little bit less urgency to launch that program because there's money on the I see. On the streets right now, so to speak, for for people who want to do the community solar model, whereas the single family, the raised program is the one we're really trying to launch first. So did I go through the obstacles? I I would be remiss not to note that twenty twenty five has been challenging, the first quarter of twenty twenty five, in terms of managing federal funds and the uncertainty around whether the funding will come through, whether people will be needing to have jobs, etcetera, etcetera. So there was a pause in communication from EPA. There was a pause in the funding, as I mentioned. They presumed communication. The message we get from our project officer is this program is a go. They're committed to to meeting the goals of the program that EPA has previously set, and they're, they're engaged and they're responsive to us at the, the staff level at EPA. We have been able to access funds. We're doing that monthly. And as Ethan mentioned, there is additional, scrutiny on Solar for All. And and just last week, the inspector general, announced that the program would be audited. We don't know what that means for the states. We don't know the extent to which that audit will, like, reach down into grantees or whether that will really stay at the NCPN level. So getting into some program specifics, which is probably the most interesting part for you all. The largest subprogram that we're, planning to offer is affectionately called the Managed Affordable Solar Housing, the math program. Twenty two million of our award will go to Vermont Housing Finance Agency. We're, just got them a draft MOU, I'm sorry, grant agreement, this week to implement this program. Again, you can see some of the goals of, reducing energy burdens for, vulnerable Vermonters and reducing, electric costs. We expect to be able to serve about three thousand households. [Chair Kathleen James]: Melissa, what is that? So, you're gonna sub grant out to VHFA, and the the recipients are residents of affordable housing. So what does that what does that actually look like? What what are you building? What are you what will they build? What will they do? How will they [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. So and the next slide shows a little bit more of a visual. So we're really DHFA will be the lead on this program. They understand the kind of revenue streams that they need to bring together, revenue streams and tax credits to build affordable housing. So they will be essentially awarding grants to both existing affordable housing units and new affordable housing that's coming online to to build solar at the time of construction. So they will be awarding upfront grants to, again, to to construct the solar. And then there will need to be a mechanism by which the property owner receives compensation for that electricity. And that would either be something like group net metering, when we start getting into the community solar aspect of our net metering program. The department has a proposal for a renewable energy for communities program. I'm not sure if you have text testimony on that yet. [Chair Kathleen James]: We have started talking about that's the reforesee thing. Alright. Reforesee. I I assume we're gonna be hearing about that later too. That's we've heard some testimony on it. I assume TJ is gonna be talking about it. It's in two eighty nine. It's circling all around us. Yeah. [Melissa Bailey]: So, I mean, just high level. I mean, it's not my [Bram Kleppner]: for sure. [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. I don't I don't live and breathe that world, but net metering is just a compensation mechanism where the utility pays for generation. So, under this program, net metering isn't an option. We're comfortable that there are other options under which, VHFA or the developers could, have a tariff from the utilities to gain revenue from the generation of the solar panels. And, again, just like with a single family application, the solar for all money will be used to buy down that cost so that, you know, essentially, you need to be made whole for the project cost either through an upfront incentive or through your ongoing compensation from the electric company for the outside. And those two sources need to bring enough funds to give customers tenants a twenty percent lower electric cost. [Jack Locker]: So I actually write this. So this is for all for multifamily particular program? [Melissa Bailey]: This would be multifamily affordable housing. Yeah. And [Speaker 8 ]: for I'm not calling them. [Jack Locker]: Housing agency, nonprofit, housing developers as well as private small process sellers. Yes. And you you I think you said you have existing construction. So and and also for a master meter then and individually metered [Melissa Bailey]: Right. The family. [Jack Locker]: If it was a master meter building, then the benefit would would really be going to the owner building. The point set benefit or even a reduction in cost. But I guess there would have to be something about the owner reducing the [Melissa Bailey]: rent. Yes. Exactly. I'm yes. Yeah. Yep. You're and then one side no. This no. It's great. It's there is this issue that was you know, if it's a master meter building, then you if the tenant doesn't pay the electric bill, they can't get that benefit through their electric bill. And I think this was envisioned in EPA's guidance. There needs to be some other demonstration of what is a benefit. Yep. Rent reductions is one of the benefits. They can be nonfinancial benefits. I've heard people say something like free Internet could be a benefit. So so that's something that VHFA is gonna work through. Again, in the focus groups they have with potential tenants, you know, what would provide value? What would make you want to Yep. Be a part [Speaker 8 ]: of this program? That's great. Thanks. [Jack Locker]: So I [Melissa Bailey]: think we're gonna move on to RAISE. I'm on slide eleven. Of course, I don't get a number of my slides for you all. This is the the homeowner portion of our of our solar for all program. We expect to allocate about fourteen and a half million to rooftop solar arrays for low income households. The conceptual design, again, would be that the financial institution, a financial institution would, one, take the upfront tax credit to kind of reduce the upfront cost of the solar, then there would be, the solar for all incentive to, again, buy down that cost, and whatever remaining cost of installing the system would be financed could be financed over, a six year term, which would require payment from the customer to a small payment to continue paying down the project cost. And then at the end of that term of the loan, they would own the system and continue to receive the benefits again, through the net metering program in Vermont. So compensation on their electric bill. Worth noting we're also exploring that concept, as I mentioned, of an outright purchase and of an ongoing lease. There's some we've concerns that, some low income homeowner homeowners, some homeowners may not actually wanna own the asset at the end, with a depreciation or, you know, stranded asset, or decommissioning costs at the end of, end of life with the solar. So we're exploring whether there's a lease option where they wouldn't actually take ownership. Right, Barry? [Speaker 10 ]: So, Colin, just a an example. So say my project, you know, I qualify through all of this, ten thousand dollars cost of the project. So this program allowed later ten grand. What's the what is the grant and what gets financed? Is it [Melissa Bailey]: We'd expect so we haven't set the exact amount, but for illustrative purposes, like a ten thousand dollar system, the solar for all grant might be five thousand. And then you'd finance the remaining five thousand over five or six years through a loan payment. [Speaker 10 ]: Okay. [Melissa Bailey]: And then through participation in Vermont's net metering program, you would be paid by your utility for your for what the solar array was putting out, And the overall savings due to the household needs to be at least twenty percent a month a month. [Chair Kathleen James]: From southward? [Chris Morrow]: You mentioned decommissioning and end of life. Can we have any firm idea on the life expectancy in solar panels? [Melissa Bailey]: We typically assume twenty eight years, and I think that's conservative. I think they can stick around for closer to thirty. [Chris Morrow]: And is there any money set aside to offset cost of decommissioning and removal or replacement? [Melissa Bailey]: We have not set aside cost, and I don't know whether that's an eligible expense or not. So I'll make a note to check. Thank you. Yeah. We on we need the whole birth two decades, but it's it's [Speaker 8 ]: worth exploring. [Speaker 10 ]: And following up on rep software's question, is that or those panels hazardous wise? [Melissa Bailey]: Oh, gosh. Probably. I think there are components that are potentially hazardous. I am actually I shouldn't I don't have that answer, and I can follow-up with you. It's not why. [Chair Kathleen James]: We do have sorry. We do [Speaker 9 ]: have work in a hazardous waste [Chris Morrow]: program many years ago For the record? [Speaker 9 ]: For monastery clean environment. They they look at everything. If you were to deconstruct everything together and pool it, they would then run an analysis, and they they would not fail as a hazardous waste. That being said, they they haven't set a hazardous waste standard for PFAS, which may be the component of the the glass or the back panels. But [Jack Locker]: right now, they're not. So [Chair Kathleen James]: Thank you. Okay. [Speaker 10 ]: Thanks. [Melissa Bailey]: Right. So we're still on some raise. On slide twelve here. So, yeah, just some program elements for standing up to raise program. And then I've mentioned partners several times. We'll we'll be moving into contract for one, a financial institution to actually finance the fur the the solar panels. We anticipate having a contract for a program administrator or implementer to do the customer facing components of the program, help people apply, do the income verification and qualification, and then also work with the developers. That's a component of the program that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. Whether we have a small network of contractors that work across the state, whether any and all contractors are eligible to put up projects, that's something we need to work through essentially our network of contractors. And then, again, there are a couple of of grants and contracts that will be issued, to support workforce development, apprenticeship programs, training for, solar the solar workforce as well as electricians. And through the RACE program, we are estimated to say they've served about a thousand households. [Speaker 8 ]: Miss Melissa, do you have any do [Jack Locker]: you have any idea whether there's any sort of certification standard for solar installers? [Melissa Bailey]: I don't know, and I'm sure and I can ask my my program managers who are specifically working on workforce development. I don't believe that there is a certification for solar installers. Okay. [Jack Locker]: I wonder if they would also Keep ups. Qualify as residential building contractors and therefore get to register with under the residential building register. [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. Right. They may. Projects over ten thousand, right, or is when that kicks in. [Chris Morrow]: Right. Just wanna follow-up on what representative Kendall said. On the next slide, it says there's a direct there's a grant to subsidize apprenticeship programs, which could lead me to believe that there should be or possibly could be some sort of, you know, certification. And there probably is an industry, and I I [Jack Locker]: don't know whether we require that in Vermont. [Chair Kathleen James]: That'd be interesting. Testimony to take. Hey, Jack. Can you make a note? [Melissa Bailey]: We should learn a little bit about workforce. [Chair Kathleen James]: The workforce. [Melissa Bailey]: Yep. My understanding is we don't currently have an apprenticeship program in Philmont. We did intentionally set one up. Staff working on this program have been working with Department of Labor and and reaching out there. So I I have the detail I have the high level concepts, but not the details, but we certainly would not be able to provide more. [Chair Kathleen James]: It'd be interesting to learn about it, I think, because you might agree. Yeah. Okay. [Ethan Hinch]: We should some [Speaker 8 ]: follow-up. [Jack Locker]: Owner certifications as well. [Chair Kathleen James]: Oh, and it would be an indication to talk yes. Always looking for opportunities. Alright. Thanks. Here we go. Sure. I think we're moving. Oh, sorry. We're not. We're up daily. [Speaker 10 ]: Well, following up on both [Jack Locker]: re [Speaker 10 ]: and re cancel. Okay. There is this one that's on hold. What is what is the staffing and support for increasing code compliance? Is that part of the on page on page two on that? [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. On my overall put federal funding. [Speaker 10 ]: Would that be funding this program that they were talking about the apprentice program? [Melissa Bailey]: No. That one is on hold, and I can get circle back to to the code work at the end. But there is money within the solar for all budget. So within the sixty two point five million to do workforce development activity, we have pretty wide latitude in terms of what those look like. So apprenticeships or trainings or certifications, I think, would all fall under workforce development. So those funds we do have access to. I think it's about a million and a half on workforce. So I'm one of the earlier slides. Okay. [Jack Locker]: Thank you. [Melissa Bailey]: Sure. So moving back to the last program, the ACRE program as noted earlier, this is based on an ACRE program, affordable community community renewable energy. It was launched using ten million in ARPA funds. This is a partnership with utilities, Vermont utilities, where they essentially construct or make solar projects available to low income customers and provide that benefit on a bill credit. So you're essentially buying a a membership with a utility owned solar array, and you get a reduced bill for [Jack Locker]: a certain [Melissa Bailey]: term of membership. And, again, we're bound by the twenty percent bill savings requirement. We expect that would be about twenty five dollars savings per month on average for an average per month. Household, again, that's the minimum we could decide to provide more benefit, but again, of course, the obvious trade up there is serving fewer households. That's a program design decision that we need to make. We are currently engaged with VEP Inc, who is the administrator of the standard offer program in Vermont. And our hope is to, rather than have utility by utility specific programs as we do currently with ACRE, is to have a statewide program that VEP Inc would administer, have some standardization there. They do have the infrastructure right now through the standard offer program to essentially disperse kilowatt hours and disperse wrecks, just disperse things to the utilities and and do that billing. So we're hoping to leverage that infrastructure and have a statewide, acre program. Alright, Anthony. Yeah. Could you [Speaker 10 ]: it's give me different police thing on Beth. What is Beth? [Melissa Bailey]: I believe the acronym is Vermont Electric Power Producers. Pretty much only go by Beth in in. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. [Melissa Bailey]: It's actually the nonprofit down in Manchester that, again, has has been administering standard offer for fifteen years or so. [Speaker 7 ]: Carolyn. And Alderman. Alderman. Yeah. [Jack Locker]: Yes. They're [Melissa Bailey]: behind the scenes. I live there. [Bram Kleppner]: The representative of Manchester. No. [Jack Locker]: No. No. No. No. No. [Chair Kathleen James]: No. No. No. No. No. [Jack Locker]: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. [Melissa Bailey]: No [Speaker 8 ]: we had testimony at I'm gonna look at what was [Jack Locker]: the department of [Speaker 8 ]: used to be the department of Utilities. You're the Department of Public Service. But the net metering as of August first of last year, it's a four cent charge for every kilowatt hour that's produced by the system and then whether or not they retain the recs another four cents. But if the utility in their goals to the future, some utilities are already contracted out for the need for solar, and it's pushing the heat back into the evening so that they have a tendency not to walk. Global solar resource, not to mention. Aside from that is there was something about the distributed generation unit. So how does all this interface with too much solar at peak time and not enough for base load when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing? [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. No. It's a great question. There's a lot of complexity around solar development and small scale solar development in Vermont. I'd say overall, our view is this program, from the department's perspective, is an affordability program. This is about getting financial benefits to income eligible households. It's not about building more solar. And, basically, the amount of solar that will be deployed in Vermont is dictated by the renewable energy standard, which the legislature has passed. Right? And I think last year, we increased the amount of in state renewable that's that's required to be passed. So this we'll be building solar with solar for all dollars, but that's solar that would otherwise be built anyway because utilities now are obligated to get twenty percent of their, their their power, their annual usage, from in state resources. So really, in my mind, this is about saying if we're gonna build solar, we should make sure those benefits go to the people who need it the most, which I think is is not the trend that we've seen in solar deployment over the past two decades. I'm not sure I fully answered your question. No. [Speaker 8 ]: But the statement was made rooftop solar units were the most expensive means of developing new generation. So from a standpoint of, yeah, you save twenty, thirty, forty percent, but if you pay twice as much for that Yeah. You're you're out of you're out at a net twenty percent. You're now gaining. One individual may gain, and I find a hundred dollar utility bill, and you're saving twenty dollars a month, very modern projection. But that that twenty dollar savings cost the neighbor more. And if the base is going up, now you're saving twenty two dollars on a hundred and twenty. Yeah. [Melissa Bailey]: But Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: The the base keeps raising. And and then I think we're gonna hear about battery storage Well, that was my first. Okay. Implement. So not only do we they found Burlington Electric. They got a diesel generator or something where for heat that they generate with a diesel generator minus thirteen degrees. But because they have wrecks, that's not they they're offsetting it with something that was generated last summer. So the total cost the total cost of the utility plant has to be recovered somewhere. Mhmm. And if we're making further investments, I just there there's a question and the size. So we have another bill that says raised to, like, five k w, the the size of a permitted system under some things, the the type of individual households don't need to be that large. If you're but if you're grouping together in some sort of community base, I can see that. Doctor. [Melissa Bailey]: Yep. We a hundred percent share the concerns around rate pressure in the electric sector, and net metering distributed solar in Vermont is creating rate pressure for other rate payers, for nonparticipants. That's that's absolutely true. In our program design, we're attempting to minimize that. Essentially so the only program that is contingent on the net metering mechanism is the the single family program where there will be some so for those thousand participants, they will see savings and, yes, by receiving net metering compensation, there will be some additional costs for other rate payers. For the other programs, we are deliberately trying to avoid the net metering structure because of that additional cost for nonparticipants that's an equity issue. [Gary Tory]: So it should be wonderful. [Melissa Bailey]: I'm not gonna get into the rec rec accounting and rec arbitrage. I I have opinions on that, but I'm not. That. It's not [Speaker 8 ]: The clock keeps ticking, and they're gonna have to take some time. [Chair Kathleen James]: TJ's coming in around ten thirty, so we're still doing okay, I think. Corey? Mine mine's [Gary Tory]: a quick question just about the RAISE program. Would it potentially be a value to to pair this solar with storage for those [Melissa Bailey]: folks? Yeah. That's a great question as well, and I realize it's not in my slides. So storage is an eligible expenditure under yeah. Under the solar for all EPA requirements. So we do anticipate deploying solar in certain instances for vulnerable populations of folks who have medical equipment or high outages. Again, it's just that cost benefit calculus. If we spend more on storage, we have fewer households we can serve with solar, but but we did, build a door application, the ability to do some storage, in certain instances. So I think I'm on my last slide, so never care. So just where we are again now, engagement efforts, you know, consistent with Act one fifty four, the environmental justice law. We take the man the mandates there seriously to engage with the people who are gonna benefit from our programs when we're designing them. So currently, we're we're having focus groups to allow for deep discussions with participants about what looks like it what is a meaningful benefit, what are the barriers you've currently experienced to accessing solar. Do you want to access solar? We hope people do. And so that's happening over the next month. We're gonna engage with community based organizations like the community action partnerships in a virtual session and then have some in person, again, focus groups geographically dispersed around Vermont. That will inform our program design going forward and it will inform our conversations with the financial partners about what loan products do people find attractive and with developers and utilities as we kind of solidify the program design that we have conceptually sketched out. [Chair Kathleen James]: How do you get the word out about the trying to engage with potential program participants? Do the CBOs do that for you guys? Or how [Melissa Bailey]: does that work? Yeah. We're working with the community based organizations. We do have I should have mentioned, we did bring on a contractor in the fall to help finalize our work plan and do this public engagement. That's Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. They're consulting base, not the Efficiency Vermont wing of the EIC. So they're supporting, along with our data and equity manager across the street at the department, they're supporting, the outreach efforts and have a good network of community based organizations in Vermont to to kinda reach out to people and hopefully bring them to the table. I mean, we're targeting focus groups of, like, eight or ten participants, and and we're hoping that we can fill those seats and and get people engaged. It's hard to get people, you know Yeah. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. Do do you have any any of these events sort of scheduled and located and stuff and things like that yet, or is that still in process? [Melissa Bailey]: They are scheduled, and I'm trying to [Jack Locker]: I [Melissa Bailey]: believe one would be in the Northeast Kingdom, one would be in Barrie, and one is somewhere. I can send you the dates and locations. That would be more helpful. [Jack Locker]: Okay. That would be great. And and I guess I would be wondering about engaging local town energy communities. Might you think? [Melissa Bailey]: Good morning. Good morning. I believe we've reached out, but I will double check that. Mark? Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: I'm curious about the program design. Have you considered just giving people solar system instead of doing this financing system, or are there requirements to them to have skin in the game. I'm I'm just worried that this you're gonna have a major uphill [Jack Locker]: Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: Battle. So they get uptake on this if if, you know, the the the perceived benefits aren't as high as they might otherwise would be? [Melissa Bailey]: It's a good question. I don't we haven't had a lot of conversation on a hundred percent incentive, which is basically what you're talking about. I don't think that we're precluded from doing that, but I would have to double check with my folks who are closer to the requirements, the program requirements. I think we've envisioned about a forty percent, incentive has been kind of the for the rough math. So If we went to a hundred, I've shared the numbers of folks we're hoping to serve. I think it's about eight thousand statewide across the three programs. If you pile that incentive up, fewer participants and that's really just the trade off. But we're open to considering what's going to be most beneficial to Vermonters and equitable knowing that this is a one time slug of money that we may never see again. That's such a balance. [Speaker 7 ]: Room for modification if you have resistance in the beginning to to change the dynamics of the program? [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. I do think we can refine the program as we go. I will just say, you know, we're also paying very close attention to how how much we need to adhere to what we put in our application and our revised work plan to EPA because we do not want to do anything that, requires a formal amendment or that, like, essentially opens up the grant, in a substantial way. When you're working with federal funds, there are certain latitude to make changes where your project officer can just sign off via email and say, yeah, that's great. You're within your flexibility of the program. Then there are ones where you kick into a formal amendment process, which we are, for obvious reasons, avoiding. [Speaker 7 ]: Right. I also have a follow-up to mister Howland's Brett Howland's question. So we you know, we TJ or someone from the department presented the map of Vermont and the, the areas of the state that are constrained by distributed generation and and the areas [Jack Locker]: of state that have a lot of capacity. Mhmm. [Speaker 7 ]: So is there consideration in this program to to target those areas of the state that have more capacity for for onboarding distributed systems? [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. I think that will be naturally baked in. So, again, there's the three subcomponents. So The ACRE program, the utilities would cite those projects. At the department, we generally think utilities should have a lot of discretion because they have that visibility into where the system can handle additional capacity and avoid having the need for upgrades that are going to cost everybody money. For ACRE, utilities would cite those projects. For MASH, where we're working with Vermont Housing Finance Agency, I think that would be a consideration as they negotiate the tariff or the people don't like the word tariff. The compensation mechanism. [Jack Locker]: Not now. [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. So I think that there's latitude there for the utilities to work with VHFA and say, look, if you're putting in a bigger scale project when you're getting into, like, one, two, up to five megawatts, we really need to be careful of siting. And if you put it here, we can compensate you at a different rate than if you put it here because you're you're going to be causing more cost. There's less value to the utility of putting it in a constrained area. With RAISE, the single family program, we don't anticipate directing projects to a certain area. Those are the small ones which from the utility's perspective are less troubling and from an equity standpoint, I think there are questions there about telling low income homeowners, no, sorry, your circuits maxed out even though hundreds of folks have already availed themselves of generous compensation under the net metering program. Again, my entire street has solar panels. I think for the single family small projects, we don't tend to do we don't intend to geographically target, but for the larger scale, we certainly would. [Jack Locker]: Yeah. That's helpful. [Melissa Bailey]: I think we've got three. So you guys find it out. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. So for [Chris Morrow]: Yeah. I just kinda wanna echo on rep Morrow's thing about the the cost versus the benefit Mhmm. Financially. So a lot of people were go are gonna look at what it's gonna cost them to repay that versus what they're actually saving. Their math isn't gonna support that. Mhmm. [Ethan Hinch]: And and I think we need [Chris Morrow]: to be very cognizant of that when we're thinking about the program because it's not [Jack Locker]: gonna be sold and it's [Chris Morrow]: not gonna be successful if you have people that look at that, aren't gonna take advantage for that reason. But I just wanna be very careful with that. [Melissa Bailey]: No. I appreciate that. I think that's a a really good point. I'm thinking it probably has implications in a lot of the programs we're rolling out right for heat pumps. The same would be true. Look. You're gonna save money over time to buy this heat pump. I think it's a really important point. And the only thing that troubles me is having to close the door on the program after a year and say, sorry, folks. There's no more. But I a hundred percent hear the concern and we want this to be attractive to people. Again, I'll look at our ability to toggle those incentive levels if people just really don't think a twenty percent bill savings or twenty dollars a month is really enough to make them wanna participate, we're gonna wanna make it more attractive. We have a hundred percent. I'll get these unspent. Yep. Rev. [Bram Kleppner]: To add to both of those, the solar project with a business that the net effect was the developer could have come to me. I had to I had to work a little more than this, but they could have come to me and said, all you have to do is sign here, and we'll build the thing. And in a few months, your power bill is gonna be go down. No upfront cost. No hassle. No nothing. They did it on bill. Like and to the extent we can say that to someone I mean, with with individual residential, it's, hey. There's gonna be a crew here banging around and making noise and making a mess for a while. But after that, you don't put up any money, and your power bill's gonna go down. Like, if you can work the on bill financing so that that is the deal, I think people will be much less concerned about I [Melissa Bailey]: gotta get it. [Bram Kleppner]: How much of it was a grant, how much of it was a loan, how much is getting repaid through their bill. Like, they have a five percent savings, but when the loan's repaid, it'll go down to twenty five percent so you meet the program. Like, that will all concern the much less than wait. You're telling me I don't have to do anything and my power bill's gonna go down? Like, that's an easy sell. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. No. [Melissa Bailey]: I really appreciate that. Thank you. And I think that that could be achieved through the lease. I my understand and my understanding is that there aren't a lot of lease options offered by developers, but I that is a pathway that we want to explore, which is essentially what you're saying. Like, we will handle the net metering compensation. We'll handle the payment for the product. You're just gonna see your one monthly bill that reflects a lower cost because all of those revenue streams came together and there was a tie down with the cost initially. I agree with you that that would be an appealing model for customers and that that's really where we want to keep our focus, is what is most beneficial to customers. We're hoping to have that underscore in the focus groups. Rick Campbell? Two questions. [Jack Locker]: One is you mentioned you're not gonna try to geographically target the race, But it it seems like it would be really good to to at least target a relatively even distribution around the state. I mean, we really wanna hit these rural areas. I live in one of them, and that that's that's that's a good example. And the other question is that it also occurred to me along the way here is working on on the roofs, single family homes, roofs, folks in this income group might need to replace roofs and before we put on the solar panel. Mhmm. And that's another another, potential. [Gary Tory]: No. There's a carport, John. [Jack Locker]: Guess what? A carport. A carport. Oh, I for a. Is that that ground or is that No. [Speaker 8 ]: No. I think it gave the the definition was the existing structure. So so a a ground mount or a a a carport built over a parking lot or a a roof built over a parking lot exclusively to support the solar panels is not, but an existing carport is just like in a [Jack Locker]: Was there a NICCOLO requirement in there? Existing housing? Oh. [Melissa Bailey]: Raise? Existing housing, yes. It Yeah. And they they believe that there will be the potential to do ground mount where rooftop isn't feasible. Yeah. And I do think I'm fairly certain that roof repairs in order to facilitate the solar are eligible expenses in the project cost. [Speaker 7 ]: Yep. Okay. And panel upgrades and stuff. [Jack Locker]: Yes. You know? [Chair Kathleen James]: Panel upgrades. I think [Jack Locker]: that was even mentioned. [Chair Kathleen James]: Mentioned. Yeah. Mhmm. Rough daily? [Speaker 10 ]: So are you looking at how how would you get this program [Jack Locker]: to work in a mobile home park? [Speaker 10 ]: Generally, the footprint for a mobile home park is pretty is set up already. They don't have extra land to build. Mhmm. So are And are there are there systems for mobile homes? [Speaker 8 ]: I think you're one. [Speaker 10 ]: It's it's not just trying to figure out how that would work in the equation. [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. So I think so VHFN has to offer or scope out a program operating for mobile home parks as well as part of the affordable housing component. There are complexities that you can put with solar on mobile homes. I I think it's much more cost effective to build them that way from the start, and there is the concern around, again, depreciating assets, depending on the age of the mobile home. But you can do rooftop. I think an alternative would be, the ground mount project, solar project that could be off-site. And mobile home residents could certainly participate in the acre program where their utility would give them a bill reduction. So essentially, if if it's not feasible to put solar on your roof, we wanna go to the other pathways without having rooftop solar to still give them plenty of benefits. [Chair Kathleen James]: Utah just passed a bill. I haven't had much of a chance to look into it, but Utah has just recently passed a bill. I'm just looking at it right now that allows really small we're calling them their portable solar systems, and they they plug into your wall and they go on your balcony. I I'm just saying, FYI, you know, if things are evolving so quickly, one thing that I think is super interesting, and I I know we wanna let you finish. Welcome to our committee. This is what [Gary Tory]: it's like here. It's why you get a mug. [Melissa Bailey]: This is why this is [Chair Kathleen James]: why everybody gets a mug is that everybody doesn't get [Melissa Bailey]: a mug. [Chair Kathleen James]: Just guessing. I'm the mug subsidizer. So one thing that's that's so interesting to me is that every good thoughtful conversation we have in our committee around climate and energy policy gets down to the core value of upfront costs versus long term savings. And I I would be interested to know one thing you said to me that was like, oh, was you need to look back at the original you're you guys are gonna need to look back at the grant proposal and see, you know, what you submitted and how flexible these funds are to program shifting program design and stuff. And so I I get that. I also very much heard that we need to try to get these dollars out the door in case they're, you know, in jeopardy, which it sounds like. Who knows? But I am really interested in in power, whether even a part of these funds could be used almost in a pilot. I I know how complicated this all stuff this stuff is, but it would be super interesting to see if we could have part of the funds be targeted at a no cost to you on bill Mhmm. You know, super easy, no upfront cost segment of the market versus, hey. We're gonna help you with fifty percent of the loan payment, and you're gonna see. It would just be interesting super interesting to see, even even in a small way, the difference in uptake. Because, you know, as one of those, there are a lot of folks around this table who are among the early adopters. You know? And it it is interesting to do the math, you know, like rep Southworth was mentioning to do the math in your household budget. And if my solar loan cost this, but my electric bill is now this, and my EV car payment is now this, but my, you know, net metering benefits are like this. It all for me, it all nets out in a really positive way. Like, overall, I am saving a lot of money. I'm saving probably hundreds of dollars a month Mhmm. Overall. But I still had to take out a loan, and I still had to pay my solar loan bill every month, which is due earlier than my electric bill. And you know what I mean? You still have to have it's a cash flow pay. And it would just be super interesting to see whether there's enough flexibility to at least pilot some of this money as kind of a no cost to you thing and see if uptake is a lot greater. Yeah. No idea. Reps help work. [Chris Morrow]: Yeah. Just follow-up with that. Not a lot of people or a lot of people do not [Jack Locker]: have that flexibility within their monthly income. [Chair Kathleen James]: Exactly. That's that's good. [Chris Morrow]: And and that's the biggest concern for me. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yep. No. And and if [Melissa Bailey]: I can just return I mean so I think that's a great idea. I think pilot makes a lot of sense. That may end up being our program design might be that no upfront cost if that's the most appealing to customers. And I do think we might have more latitude to make changes to program design down the road. Like, right now, the the desire is to get something launched. I think the biggest question is, like, what's the motivator for customers? And some of that learning might come from the three programs we have right now. So to be to be clear, the ACRE program, all you do is call your utility and say, sign me up, and I wanna build this account. And my understanding is there's unsubscribed capacity. So so they have solar and they have memberships that aren't taken. So, again, it's getting into what is that motivator for customers. People want it to be easy. That's a hypothesis. I think it's probably true. And how do we remove those barriers? And do people do participants want solar on their roofs? Is that a commitment that they want, or do they want lower energy costs? Again, I might have personal opinion, but I the committee might, but really, what is the driver for customers? Is it I wanna own solar, or is it I just want my electric bill to be affordable every month? And so we're hoping to get that learning, and I think we'll see that by which programs people participate in. Even if we make raise the single family program really attractive financially, will I'm not a hundred percent confident that we'll fully subscribe in. Will people still wanna go through the trouble of installing solar panels, Or is there another meth method that's more attractive? You know? Okay. I have another [Jack Locker]: linkage to just just to look back. I have another linkage to explore, and that is people who are contemplating leasing an electric car or or plugging in. They might be interested in in in a way to own sets of additional car. Yeah. [Gary Tory]: I was just gonna ask what I'm saying with my number. Oh, in terms of risk because of the funding from the pets, there is something to be said for experimenting in this way and see if if that really makes a difference for people. And you've spent, you know, more of your budget that may be gone. So there's I mean, in this setting, I normally wouldn't think of that then. But in this setting, don't hold back. I'm wondering with the ACRE program too because we're hearing a lot about resilience challenges to the grid and people losing power. And so I'm thinking about, does the ACRE program give the utility the ability to almost have a microgrid in their most vulnerable areas? I'm not sure because I don't understand how big this [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. What I'm what I'm what I'm pausing at is I mean, they could certainly cite a solar array to serve a vulnerable area. I'm not sure that we envision doing storage through the acre program because of the house. Right. Because those those utility scale storage is expensive. We do have some ARPA funds that we're deploying for the utilities where they can do community scale storage. [Gary Tory]: It would be great because I know we're doing a you know, we're just we we really have to focus on our adaptation Yeah. And and we have to focus on protecting people. So any way to leverage all the various funds and coordinate it because it seems like this has the potential to really slot into existing things. Yep. [Melissa Bailey]: No. That's a good point. And, hopefully, the utilities would couple those funds because I I agree with you. We, yeah, we are going to encourage people to rely more heavily on electricity. We need to make sure that the electricity is reliable and affordable. Yeah. [Chris Morrow]: Thank you. The other thing that I think of is what about the utilities that are already one already one hundred percent renewable? If we have an influx of solar, number one, are they amenable to taking that on? And number two, is their infrastructure gonna be able to handle that influx? And if not, that would mean an infrastructure upgrade, which would down the line mean an increase in utility cost because we're gonna pay [Ethan Hinch]: for that. So that's another concern. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yep. [Melissa Bailey]: Again, there are some utilities in Vermont that are in is that renewable? Everybody's on that trajectory. Right? We have a hundred percent renewable energy standard. So, again, we look at these subprograms as operating under the umbrella of the renewable energy standard, which you all set that policy and said this is the right amount of renewable energy for Vermonters and this is the right amount of in state renewable generation for Vermonters. So this would essentially just displace solar that was built elsewhere. So when we see a program like this, we don't see it as adding more solar. We see it as targeting the solar to low income households. In terms of grid constraints, I think, again, I don't think any utilities can't take additional power anywhere on their systems. It's really about where they can put that [Chris Morrow]: distributed energy. It's it's just a thought for concern. That's all. [Melissa Bailey]: Oh, yeah. No. Minimizing the unintended consequences of grid upgrades is absolutely important. [Speaker 8 ]: Yeah. That's a lot of shame. [Speaker 7 ]: You get more than you bargained for it. [Melissa Bailey]: That's it. That was great. My hard time while we're here, and this is. Hi. [Chair Kathleen James]: You're so welcome. Starting to [Melissa Bailey]: Yeah. Yeah. I went up by the cafeteria first. I started up in Yeah. Yeah. Oh, right environment. For being more, very [Chair Kathleen James]: Well, thank thank you for coming. Is everybody good? [Speaker 7 ]: Yeah. That's very helpful. [Melissa Bailey]: Happy to talk about other federal funds at another time or whenever. Alright. Nice. [Chair Kathleen James]: Well, I think did is TJ coming around ten thirty? [Speaker 7 ]: He's out there. He's out there. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Could we take a five minute break? Jack, let's go off live. Melissa, thank you so much for being here. [Jack Locker]: Thank you for your time.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-03-27 9:00am

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: