This April 1st, just months after the Trump administration stripped away a decades-old tax credit for residential solar, the Public Service Department recommended freezing the compensation due to the more than 20,000 families, businesses, schools, and municipalities that have already invested in solar net metering. The Department’s recommendation would do nothing to help Vermont families go solar while retroactively penalizing those who have already done so.
In just one month, more than 800 Vermonters wrote to the Public Utility Commission (PUC), urging it to reject the Department’s harmful recommendation. The comments are filled with stories of Vermonters investing in solar to align their investments with their values, retirees and families seeking protection from rising utility rates, and a sense of the profound injustice of the Department’s proposal. The volume of comments submitted to the PUC more than doubles the number of comments that the PUC received in the 2022 and 2024 net metering biennia updates combined.
In this case, REV is recommending that the PUC update the blended rate by 2.3 cents/kWh, consistent with past practice, and set the siting adjustors for on-site net metering at -2 cents/kWh to partially offset the loss of the federal residential tax credit, making net metering more affordable to more Vermonters. A decision is expected by June 1st. Conact Jonathan Dowds (jonathan@revermont.org) to be kept up to date on the net metering biennial update.
Vermonters Investing in Their Values
“When my late wife and I decided to invest in rooftop solar, we did so even though it wasn’t clear we could actually afford it since we were both at or beyond retirement age. We did so to not only take advantage of the rebates and small but helpful generation pricing incentives, but because of our environmental concerns… By restricting the real value of the energy I produce, you are telling me I was a fool to invest in our energy future with whatever hard-earned savings I had.” – Ira Wilner, Westminster West VT
“I am writing today as a mother, Vermont ratepayer, and shareholder in a community solar array in Strafford, Vermont to oppose the proposed changes to the net metering structure […] Vermonters pride themselves on self-reliance, taking care of their neighbors, and putting values and quality of life over corporate profits. Undermining our ability to invest in and rely on community solar flies in the face of our most deeply held values and our interests. – Vanessa Rule, Tunbridge VT
My household invested in a Solaflect solar tracker because we believed in producing clean energy locally and because Vermont’s net-metering framework made that investment financially reasonable. … Vermont often speaks proudly about community, resilience, local self-reliance, and environmental stewardship. A policy that weakens small-scale solar, protects rising utility revenues, and leaves individual Vermonters with less value for the power they produce does not live up to those values.” – Max Wunderlich, Hartland VT
Supporting Affordable Housing
“Evernorth has long seen the value of solar as both a tool to reduce our communities’ emissions and a means of enhancing the sustainability of housing. Starting eleven years ago we were the first nonprofit housing developer to develop groundmount solar…
What PSD has proposed would represent a real harm to our efforts to provide both sustainable and affordable housing, limiting our ability to afford electrified heating and cooling systems moving forward as well as jeopardizing the financial solvency of our existing portfolio of electrified buildings, all of which rely on net-metered credits to offset the high cost of electric HVAC.” -Kathy Beyer and Jess Neubelt, Evernorth
Maintaining Trust
“I urge the commission to uphold the commitments that Vermonters (myself included) relied on when they chose to invest in clean energy. I wouldn’t consider reneging on paying for the solar energy I contracted for. Similarly, the PUC should not skirt its responsibility by freezing the blended rate. Doing so would reduce the compensation that families, schools, and municipalities are counting on to help to pay for their long-term investments.” – Pamela Piper, Norwich VT
“I invested a significant amount of money in an offsite solar array in Vermont specifically to reduce my dependence on fossil fuels and to support the buildout of in-state renewable generation. That investment was made on the basis of the net metering framework in place at the time — a framework that tied credits to the statewide blended rate. I ran the numbers and committed capital in reliance on that structure. Changing the rules now, after Vermonters have made long-term financial decisions in good faith, undermines the public trust upon which any functioning energy policy depends. It is effectively a retroactive cut to the return on investments the state encouraged its residents to make.” – Meg Hourihan, Warren VT
“[For over ten years] I’ve had the privilege to stand with landowners, deal with local banks, sit before town boards, meet with non-profit housing developers, and many others to discuss participating in Vermont’s net metering program. In each instance, I conveyed the inherent agreement at the heart of the program. Participants make long term commitments based on an expectation of reliance on rules in place at that time. Whether a loan, a lease, or a 25-year commitment to a net metering credit agreement, these participants are shaking hands with Vermont in good faith.” – Brendan Malley Chief Commercial Officer, Norwich Technologies Inc. Resident, Randolph, VT
Legislators Speak Out
“We’re strong supporters of renewable energy: It’s how we power a Vermont that’s cleaner, more affordable and more resilient. To get there, we must have a reliable, forward-looking regulatory framework that supports both commercial and residential solar deployment.
We strongly oppose the Department’s recommendation to freeze the statewide blended retail rate. This erodes trust in our regulatory framework, destabilizes financing, and is grossly unfair to roughly 20,000 existing net-metering customers who’ve invested in beneficial energy technology. It is an unnecessary punitive step that looks at Vermont’s energy future through a far-too-narrow lens.” – Rep. Kathleen James, Chair; Rep. Scott Campbell, Vice Chair; Rep. Bram Kleppner; Rep. Christopher Morrow; Rep. Dara Torre; House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee
“I would like to specifically voice my opposition to the recommendation by the Public Service Department to freeze the blended residential retail rate (BRRR) at 2024 levels. This is an unprecedented request which would have serious financial repercussions for thousands of Vermonters who have invested in residential solar, for the many businesses, schools, municipalities and enrollees in community solar programs that have invested in off site net metering.” – Senator Anne Watson, Washington District, Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee Chair
“The Vermont Department of Public Service’s preferred recommendation to update net metering would unfairly target the investment that over 20,000 Vermont homeowners, businesses, school districts, non-profits, and municipalities have made in going solar. Targeting these investments will threaten the financial viability of many of these projects and increase the economic strain of many homeowners and small businesses.
I urge you to reject this recommendation and replace it with fair compensation that makes it
easier for more Vermonters to invest in home solar, not harder.” – Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Majority Leader, Vermont State Senate; Member, Senate Economic Development; Housing & General Affairs Committee; Member, Senate Education Committee
Providing Price Stability For Retirees, Families, and Small Businesses
“One of the many reasons I decided to go solar several years ago was to prepare for my retirement years with predictable, affordable electricity pricing for my energy use. Anyone who looks at fossil fuel pricing over the past decades knows that they are the least predictable, highest priced, and most price-volatile of fuels… And investing in solar makes it even more affordable, especially for people on fixed incomes.” – Linda McGinnis, South Burlington, VT
I am retired and on a fixed income. I cashed in my IRA retirement to pay for a solar array because I knew I would not be able to keep up with either rising energy cost and also pay for pharmaceuticals, food, and rising property taxes. I am disappointed and angry hearing Governor Scott would approve an action to allow GMP to essentially steal from me. – Catherine Kratz Springfield, VT
“Approximately eight years ago, my family made a significant financial investment in rooftop solar at our home in Vermont. That decision was not driven by ideology. It was driven by the clear policy framework established by the State and the Public Utility Commission at the time, which made solar a rational and economically viable investment. We relied on that framework in good faith.” – Brian Murphy, Montpelier VT
“I am writing as the owner of a 35-seat restaurant in Danville, VT, that operates an all-electric kitchen. To manage high utility costs, we joined a local solar cooperative for community net metering several years ago. We are also scheduled to install a roof-mounted solar array within the next month. Maintaining access to net metering is essential for us to control overhead and ensure our business remains profitable.” – Caleb Clark, Three Ponds Restaurant, Danville VT
Growing Local Economies
Our small, family-owned business has proudly served Vermont for over 15 years. … Homeowners looking into solar installations are motivated by several factors: a reasonable return on investment, the desire to reduce their carbon footprint, and a sense of energy independence. I respectfully ask that you do not make further adjustments that would make “going solar” even less accessible for Vermonters. The potential impacts on our small business, our employees, our suppliers, and our customers would be severe. – Chris Blanchard, President, Bristol Electronics, Inc
“[We are] a two-person company that invests in photovoltaic generation projects located on municipal buildings in Vermont towns. We could have gotten a better rate of return in the stock market, but we are both in the late stages of our careers and are looking toward retirement. Because the sun comes up every day, we also thought that our solar investment would be predictable. Investing in solar also let us put our money where our values are and support Vermont renewable energy goals. … If the PUC no longer adjusts the net metering rate to keep up with the retail price of electricity, it would be taking money out of our pockets and out of the pockets of all owners of net metered solar projects across Vermont.” – Jeff Forward and Chris Granda Principals of Vermont Independent Energy
Far-Reaching Consequences
LD 1777, An Act to Reduce Costs and Increase Customer Protections for the State’s Net Energy Billing Program, was enacted last June and imposed new monthly fees on community solar projects, reducing the compensation received by already operating projects by approximately 20%. Because the law applied to projects that had already been built and financed under the prior program rules, it altered the economic assumptions under which those investments were made. Unfortunately, the harm caused by that breach of trust is already being felt in Maine. Multiple MREA members have announced that they intend to stop developing projects in the state altogether or have reported higher capital costs for projects in Maine, reflecting a higher perceived risk working in the state. A smaller pool of developers reduces competitive pressure in project development and financing, and higher perceived regulatory risk increases the cost of capital for projects that do proceed. Together, these effects are likely to lead to higher project costs over time at the expense of Maine ratepayers. – Eliza Donoghue, Esq. Executive Director Maine Renewable Energy Association
The operating net metered projects that Altus Power owns were financed, built, and placed in service in good-faith reliance on Vermont’s law and regulatory constructs. If Vermont were to apply a different compensation framework to these operating projects on a go-forward basis, this would upend the investment framework that was relied upon in making capital decisions.
Retroactively altering the economics of operating projects does not merely affect Altus Power; it would send a signal to every infrastructure investor evaluating Vermont that the state’s policy commitments are conditional and subject to revision after capital has been deployed. – Justin Biltz Head of Policy and Government Affairs Altus Power