Committee votes to report S.50 to expand expedited registration for small solar projects
April 26, 2025 | Environment & Energy, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 25 voted unanimously to report S.50, a bill that raises the size threshold for solar net‑metering projects that qualify for expedited registration and directs the Public Utility Commission to update related rules.
Representative Kathleen James, a member of the committee, opened discussion by saying she had reviewed the latest draft and that “unless I missed anything, I think it incorporates all the final language that we talked about.” The committee then debated several technical edits before approving draft 3.2 as amended and ordering the bill to the floor by roll call vote (9–0–0).
The bill’s key provisions in the draft discussed include replacing an existing numerical threshold of “15” with “25” (the transcript records the change as “15 to 25”; the unit or metric is not specified in the discussion), restoring statutory language that explicitly requires an expedited registration process for net‑metering projects (a provision committee counsel said had “gotten lost in the shuffle” of prior statute changes), and asking the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to align its rules with the new statutory language and allow applicants to use the expedited registration process during rulemaking. Committee members also discussed increasing the period during which a customer may change their mind after a system is commissioned from “90 to 120” (the transcript records those numeric values but does not specify the unit as days).
Committee members and legislative counsel described a set of administrative cleanups in the draft: removing a duplicative filing/recording requirement the PUC can now check electronically, asking the PUC to provide a short explanatory narrative when it amends the statutory definition of “plant,” and adding a statewide minimum setback where one previously did not exist for smaller systems. The draft sets a statewide minimum setback figure suggested in testimony (10 feet was mentioned as a VLCT recommendation), though committee members debated whether the setback language should measure from the “traveled way” (the edge of the road surface) or from the broader “right of way.”
Ellen Czechowski of the Office of Legislative Council explained the statutory history: the procedural sentence establishing the expedited registration process had been removed from the statute over a series of past legislative updates and now lives only in rule. “So now we’re putting it back in statute,” Czechowski said, describing the draft language that restores a statutory directive for an expedited registration procedure.
Several members raised concerns about how the bill’s siting language would interact with existing permitting for state and municipal highway rights of way. Committee discussion repeatedly referenced 19 V.S.A. § 1111, the statutory scheme under which the Agency of Transportation issues permits for use of highway right of way. Czechowski and other members said the Agency of Transportation’s Section 11 permit process is likely to remain the controlling safety/permitting review for anything actually sited within a highway right of way.
Peter Sterling, a meeting participant who the committee asked about installer practice, described how private installers approach right‑of‑way risks: “When they see a right of way, they are gonna be as far from that right of way as possible,” he said, noting that replacing damaged panels can be costly and installers avoid siting arrays where they anticipate future roadway maintenance or plowing could cause damage.
Representative Scott Campbell and Representative Michael Southworth pressed for clarity about how far setback measurements would reach and whether measuring from right of way versus traveled way would push qualifying projects farther from road infrastructure. Committee members agreed to “put a pin in” that specific wording and to rely on legislative counsel and subsequent floor or Senate edits if needed.
The committee approved a motion to report draft 3.2 of S.50 as amended; the clerk’s roll call produced a 9–0–0 vote in favor. Committee members said the bill will be placed on the notice calendar in a token session on Monday and scheduled for second reading on Tuesday.
Votes at a glance: the committee’s motion to report draft 3.2 of S.50 as amended passed by roll call, 9–0–0.
The bill as drafted requests that the PUC (1) update rules to match the new statutory language and allow expedited registration during rulemaking, (2) provide an explanatory narrative when they amend the statutory definition of “plant,” and (3) consider land‑use and ratepayer impacts as part of any rule changes. The draft also contains an effective date provision, listing July 1 as the intended effective date.
What happens next: the committee will submit the bill to the House clerk for floor scheduling; committee members said they expect the bill on the notice calendar after a token session and on the action calendar for second reading the following day.
Representative Kathleen James, a member of the committee, opened discussion by saying she had reviewed the latest draft and that “unless I missed anything, I think it incorporates all the final language that we talked about.” The committee then debated several technical edits before approving draft 3.2 as amended and ordering the bill to the floor by roll call vote (9–0–0).
The bill’s key provisions in the draft discussed include replacing an existing numerical threshold of “15” with “25” (the transcript records the change as “15 to 25”; the unit or metric is not specified in the discussion), restoring statutory language that explicitly requires an expedited registration process for net‑metering projects (a provision committee counsel said had “gotten lost in the shuffle” of prior statute changes), and asking the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to align its rules with the new statutory language and allow applicants to use the expedited registration process during rulemaking. Committee members also discussed increasing the period during which a customer may change their mind after a system is commissioned from “90 to 120” (the transcript records those numeric values but does not specify the unit as days).
Committee members and legislative counsel described a set of administrative cleanups in the draft: removing a duplicative filing/recording requirement the PUC can now check electronically, asking the PUC to provide a short explanatory narrative when it amends the statutory definition of “plant,” and adding a statewide minimum setback where one previously did not exist for smaller systems. The draft sets a statewide minimum setback figure suggested in testimony (10 feet was mentioned as a VLCT recommendation), though committee members debated whether the setback language should measure from the “traveled way” (the edge of the road surface) or from the broader “right of way.”
Ellen Czechowski of the Office of Legislative Council explained the statutory history: the procedural sentence establishing the expedited registration process had been removed from the statute over a series of past legislative updates and now lives only in rule. “So now we’re putting it back in statute,” Czechowski said, describing the draft language that restores a statutory directive for an expedited registration procedure.
Several members raised concerns about how the bill’s siting language would interact with existing permitting for state and municipal highway rights of way. Committee discussion repeatedly referenced 19 V.S.A. § 1111, the statutory scheme under which the Agency of Transportation issues permits for use of highway right of way. Czechowski and other members said the Agency of Transportation’s Section 11 permit process is likely to remain the controlling safety/permitting review for anything actually sited within a highway right of way.
Peter Sterling, a meeting participant who the committee asked about installer practice, described how private installers approach right‑of‑way risks: “When they see a right of way, they are gonna be as far from that right of way as possible,” he said, noting that replacing damaged panels can be costly and installers avoid siting arrays where they anticipate future roadway maintenance or plowing could cause damage.
Representative Scott Campbell and Representative Michael Southworth pressed for clarity about how far setback measurements would reach and whether measuring from right of way versus traveled way would push qualifying projects farther from road infrastructure. Committee members agreed to “put a pin in” that specific wording and to rely on legislative counsel and subsequent floor or Senate edits if needed.
The committee approved a motion to report draft 3.2 of S.50 as amended; the clerk’s roll call produced a 9–0–0 vote in favor. Committee members said the bill will be placed on the notice calendar in a token session on Monday and scheduled for second reading on Tuesday.
Votes at a glance: the committee’s motion to report draft 3.2 of S.50 as amended passed by roll call, 9–0–0.
The bill as drafted requests that the PUC (1) update rules to match the new statutory language and allow expedited registration during rulemaking, (2) provide an explanatory narrative when they amend the statutory definition of “plant,” and (3) consider land‑use and ratepayer impacts as part of any rule changes. The draft also contains an effective date provision, listing July 1 as the intended effective date.
What happens next: the committee will submit the bill to the House clerk for floor scheduling; committee members said they expect the bill on the notice calendar after a token session and on the action calendar for second reading the following day.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting