Gov Phil Scott’s veto of H.710 is a sign that he’s lost the thread on energy affordability. The purpose of the Bill was to eliminate redundant infrastructure requirements for small solar projects built near one another and reduce regulatory uncertainty in the permitting process. It was a common-sense reform that would have made new renewables cheaper to construct and lessened the workload on Public Utility Commission (PUC) staff. Nothing in H.710 diminished citizens’ powers to participate in or object to renewable energy permit applications; it simply reduced red tape to deliver lower-cost renewable energy to Vermonters. Scott’s veto justification is flat wrong, a misleading sound bite about community input, attached to a Bill designed to lower costs for Vermont ratepayers.
H.710 would have eliminated barriers to building solar projects near one another. Today, a solar project built adjacent to an existing solar project must build a separate access road and go through a subjective and time-consuming “single plant” determination process. H.710 created objective standards for that determination process and allowed the projects to share access roads and other infrastructure, reducing project costs and limiting their footprint on the landscape.
“Governor Scott may wish he had a redo on this one,” said REV Deputy Director Jonathan Dowds. “It doesn’t sound like he knew what the bill did when he vetoed it.” Scott’s own Public Service Department supported the Bill in committee; the language was written by PUC regulators he appointed, and it passed the House and Senate with Republican support.
Contrary to Scott’s claims, H.710 would have maintained the same requirements for wind project expansion that exist today. Under current law, a wind project owner would need to apply for an amendment to its Certificate of Public Good to expand that project, and the expansion would need to meet the current, restrictive sound rule that took effect after Vermont’s existing ridgeline wind projects were permitted and built. The PUC would take public input and determine if the amendment was in the public interest. Under H.710, the exact same process would apply. Scott’s claim that H.710 would have encouraged the expansion of existing wind facilities is not grounded in reality, which is why neither the PSD nor PUC raised concerns about it during the Legislative debate.
Added Dowds, “It’s a wasted opportunity to make it a little easier to build the new renewable generation that everyone agrees we need. It should have been right in the Governor’s wheelhouse.”