Public Comments Received Via E-Mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 (Updated 5/13/16 @ 2:45 PM)

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 (Updated 5/13/16 @ 2:45 PM)

Dear Members of the Vermont Public Service Board:

As a Vermonter who has recently installed solar on my home and earlier shepherded an installation at my business, I am concerned about the proposed changes to PSB Rule 5.100. I don't profess to be expert in all of the nuances of your work or the rules concerning solar incentives, but I am concerned about what I have read about the proposed changes.

Vermont is a state that is incredibly dependent on the health and vitality of our forests, farms and communities. Climate change presents a clear and present danger to all that we hold dear - transitioning thoughtfully, but rapidly to renewable power is one of the most obvious and readily available "solutions" and opportunities before us. Unless the goal is to promote more utility-scale installations at the expense of homeowner and small business investments, we need to continue to make this transition as simple and cost-effective to the small installer as possible.

Tying our ability to install solar at a competitive (albeit subsidized) rate to selling the RECs to GMP seems counterintuitive. In my mind, the object is to incentivize responsible solar installation to increase Vermont's energy independence and global responsibility (and leadership), not provide a mechanism for creating a profit through selling RECs.

I would respectfully request that you amend Rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who install solar and choose to retain and retire their RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the GMP.

Sincerely, Ben Freeman

Please do not push this rule forward, it is a detriment to the residents of this state wishing to install solar. Our state is so forward thinking with renewable energy, this will only serve to send us way backwards - no other state has rules such as this!!!

Thank you, Lucy Nersesian

Dear Public Service Board,

My wife and I are considering installing solar panels on our home in the next few years to power our home and home-based business. We are very troubled to learn that the proposed net metering rule includes financial penalties for retaining the Renewable Energy Credits associated with home solar production. Shouldn't the lack of an incentive be enough? This rule makes it harder for us to create a small business that is truly running on solar power and is a pathetic handout to the utilities and large

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 businesses who seem intent on meeting their renewable energy obligations as half-heartedly as is possible.

Please do your job, represent the interests of all members of the public, and remove the penalty from the REC adjustor from the new net metering rules

Sincerely,

Rafe Rosen Dummerston

When I signed a 20 year loan for my 7.2kw solar photovoltaic array, I assumed that the reimbursement rate per KWH paid by my utility would continue at the same rate., with no extra fees. I am paying $200 per month on this loan, even though my electric bill was only $100-150/month. Clearly I am investing in clean energy for the future, and hope that Vermont will continue to encourage investments such as mine, by not reducing the net metering reimbursement rate, OR allowing a grid service fee to be charged.

Please be fair to those of us who have already invested in a cleaner energy future by keeping rates predictable, without any additional fees.

Peter Crawford PO Box 247, East Corinth, VT 05040

To the Public Service Board:

Net metering has been an incentive for the growth of renewable energy in Vermont. And negative changes made to this valuable program will be a disincentive to Vermonters who want to go solar. I think it is incumbent on the PSB to protect consumers, not power companies' interests. In doing so, you will be protecting the earth as well. This may seem like a small change, but it isn't in terms of consumers' ability to continue solarizing Vermont. Please do not make any changes to the net metering program.

Best, Liz Blum 48 Cliff St. Norwich, VT 05055

As a home owner who has just installed a PV system I want to express my wholehearted support of net metering and Vermont’s efforts to create incentives for solar and wind in our state. Vermont prides itself of having a green portfolio when it comes to generating clean energy. I hope the PSB will help us keep Vermont green by providing incentives for homeowners and other energy generators. Have a great day!

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Jay Mead

Hi there,

I am a new customer of Suncommon (also long time GMP customer) who just got rooftop solar installed last week on my single family residence. I am of course concerned about the net metering credit rate changes because my system was sized for our usage but also to the amount of credit we receive for solar production (solar adder - 5.3c). We will depend on the current adder to cover our usage in the wintertime.

Our system is not proven yet and if the rate drops (to 3c) that would mean we could end up paying a utility bill. The incentive for the solar adder is that one can affordably install a solar array on a home; without it I would most definitely have reconsidered putting solar on my home (green renewable energy aside).

In the beginning of the process of getting a solar array I understood that GMP was providing a grandfathered solar adder rate for 10 years, but I would like to know if even that is under threat. I don't want to be left high and dry by the state for taking the renewable energy leap of faith.

Please make sure it is clear to the public what exactly we will be paying for (or getting credit for), as well as any utility company specifics. I would like to see it on the website. That would be helpful for us current residential customers to understand the change.

Best regards,

Ian Duckett 45 Lochmoor Rd Fairfax, VT 05454

Dear Clerk of the Board:

As the PSB considers altering Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy I hope it will do so in a way that does not dampen consumer demand for solar and other "green" energy sources. Anyone who is paying attention knows that we need to accelerate, not slow, our adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

John Vogel Tuck School of Business

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Sarah Robson Owner of a Solaflect solar tracker in one of their solar farms.

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Chris Moore Norwich, VT

Vermont’s net metering program has helped thousands of Vermont families, businesses, schools, churches and others invest in affordable, local renewable energy.

I would like it to continue, and expand.

Carolyn L. Bates

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Regards,

Seth Goodwin Norwich, VT

I am writing to ask you to change the rules regarding residential solar generation of electricity. The current rules provide easy profit and little risk for power companies, like Green Mountain Power, and the banks financing residential solar installations. The rules place the burden of higher costs and risks on the residential solar supplier while discouraging energy conservation in the long run. The recent legislative proposals of March 31, 2016 considered adding fees to residents generating electricity with solar. The legislative activity earlier in March 2016 also appear to have intended to erode the financial benefits of residential installations through fees and lowered net-metering rates for surplus electricity sent to the grid. My perception is that the Public Service Board and legislature are creating policies that are punitive to those interested in advancing solar. These same policies favor profit for the power company and financers.

In 2014 I made the choice to install solar panels. The federal tax incentive plus the electricity I’d generate brought my expected net cost close to the breakeven point. At the time of my decision, my monthly electric bill averaged $115/month. The monthly loan payment for my solar array is $156/month. Enerbank, my financer, will receive $2500 in finance charges over 12 years. Along with the bank making profit, the rules permit Green Mountain Power to skim $350 in annual pure profit from me. The rules in place require that my credits expire after 12 months. With peak months coming for solar generation, I’m likely to see $350 of credits handed to Green Mountain Power. With credit expiration, my monthly cost will settle at $130/month compared to my pre-solar $115/month. Instead of Going Solar providing a breakeven for me, the rules have been stacked to assure that Green Mountain Power and Enerbank profit with no investment and little risk.

The expiration of credits is no more than a hidden fee which Green Mountain Power absorbs as pure profit. Because these credits expire, the typical consumer is likely to maximize use of the electricity they generate rather than conserve. Though the provision to give credits to someone else exists, it is not a provision that encourages conservation. There is no financial incentive for the consumer with excess credits. Those having credits transferred to them receive a financial benefit with no motivation to conserve. The individual residential generator/consumer is therefore forced to pay higher costs for generating clean energy. The consumers receiving the shared credits are rewarded for using electricity from all sources, including greenhouse gas emitting sources. Such direction in policy will eventually destroy the drive for cleaner energy and encourage the continued burning of fossil fuels.

I have been very satisfied with the performance of my solar installation and am encouraged with it’s having prevented 16,775 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from traditional sources. I’m very discouraged by the articles and proposals I see in the legislature that seem designed to make it easier for the power company and banks to reap pure profit with now risk. If the power company is to get fees, it should be based on their role in distribution and it should be applied to all customers. The power company does no maintenance, service, or upgrading of my system, so a fee assessed to the solar residential generator has little basis in the economics. Instead I ask the Public Service Board and legislature to create policy which challenges the power company to improve their operations and

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 encourage renewables. Such policy should also reward the individual that takes action to reduce sources of greenhouse gas, rather than make them pay more and more fees to do so.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

David Shanks 341 Metcalf Dr. Williston, VT 05495

Many of us want to Go Solar. There is no sound reason to penalize our net metering credit compared to a costumer who turns their RECs over to the utility. Going solar fits into Vermont's renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Why would you compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a costumer who sells the RECs out of state for profit, and does not contribute energy for Vermont? There are too many deceptive solar marketing claims and this rule change would only make the situation worse!

Please amend the rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who go solar, by retaining and retiring RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the Utility.

Respectfully, Carol Langstaff

Dear Clerk of the Board:

I’m writing as a concerned citizen in Norwich, VT.

It appears to me that the renewable energy policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the state and for the planet.

I’m particularly confused by what appears to be an attempt to reward consumers who sell their renewable energy credits to a utility, rather than doing nothing with them. Why wouldn’t we want to reward consumers who do the opposite … that is, those who invest in solar, pay a bit more, and do nothing that would dampen the pressures on utilities to also invest in renewables.

What possible logic is there to such a policy? Can you please explain?

Vermont should strive to lead the nation in the transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Chris Trimble

April 16, 2016

Dear Vermont Public Service Board

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As Vermonters who install solar for our homes and businesses, we believe that it is important to legally "go solar." We want to be able to claim we consume the solar energy that is generated from our solar panels. It will be financially prohibitive for Vermonters to retain and retire their RECs under the new rule. Citizens, businesses and community organizations who go solar contribute additional renewable energy toward Vermont's 90% renewable energy goal and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

There is no sound policy reason to penalize us by reducing our net metering credit compared to a customer who turns their RECs over to the utility. Our decision to go solar has the same benefit to the climate and contributes equally toward Vermont's renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. It is bad public policy to compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a customer who sells the RECs out of state for profit and does not contribute renewable energy for Vermont.

Furthermore, the proposed rule would harm Vermont's local solar installers by putting them in an impossible position where they have to decide between having a viable, competitive business, or a business that actually sells solar to their customers. Currently there are too many deceptive solar marketing claims and this rule change will only worsen the situation.

We respectfully request that you ament Rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who go solar by retaining and retiring their RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the utility.

Sincerely,

Winston Davis 174 Sunset Road Barre Town VT 05641

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Jason Kable

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Polly Cole Thetford Center

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Dale Kjerulff Solar Tracker owner South Woodstock

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels. best regards, Mark Schindler Thetford, VT

I wanted to express my strong disapproval of reducing the economic incentives relating to solar power and particularly the penalty for retaining the REC's. I invested in solar as a way to personally combat

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 climate change by reducing my carbon footprint. Selling the REC's would allow some other entity to claim a reduction in carbon footprint while emitting the same amount of carbon. That only makes sense if your top concern is money. The planet is what I'm thinking about. It needs help. Keep or increase the incentives, or tell us the real truth about why this shouldn't be so.

Marshall Webb

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Thank you.

Liz Ryan Cole 802.785.4124 Thetford, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Polly Cole Thetford Center

To the Public Service Board,

We understand how difficult it is to get net-metering laws correct. We understand creating siting incentives to make sure we consider the rooftop and "worst" land first. But where we get completely turned around is the disincentives proposed to any community solar group that wants to see their RECs retired, that wants to claim their array as "solar". Isn't that what we want - 90% renewable by 2050? We propose that the standard NM rate be $.0x above the residential rate - that standard rate REQUIRES the

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

RECs be retired by the Utility and system owner. If the Utility or the owner of the group net-metered array wants to sell the RECS, the net-metered price drops by $.0x. That is the message we want to send.

But more than anything, we want to lift the cap so we can continue to create good jobs in the renewable energy sector. MA is doing it. We need to as well. Thanks, Dorothy M. Wolfe, P.E. Wolfe Energy LLC PO Box 161 Strafford, VT 05072

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Josh Manheimer J.C. Manheimer & Company 1067 Turnpike Road Norwich, Vermont 05055

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Joshua Gale, DC

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Margery Cantor

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Susan Colm

Dear Board Members,

I have been following with interest the news about the various hearings regarding 5.100 RULE PERTAINING TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF NET-METERING SYSTEMS.

While some of the news has been encouraging, it seems that an overwhelming amount of input from the various electrical utilities is attempting to influence a “roll back” or complete dismantling of the renewable energy policies in place in Vermont. It is not surprising that the electrical utilities would service their interests in this matter; they are after all in business to make a profit. I believe that information and/or “testimony” offered by these entities should be taken and seen in the biased light in which it is offered.

While local control seems to be a hot button issue for many involved, this is certainly not an insurmountable hurdle and should be included as part of the discussion and part of the final equation. While building on agricultural land seems to be counterproductive, some compromise allowing Vermont farmers to realize some income from unused land would certainly seem equitable. The State of Vermont has an abundance of appropriate sites for solar generation, not the least of which is the unused land adjacent to and abutting our Interstate highways, that otherwise lies fallow. Additionally there are many large and medium sized buildings that have roof tops appropriate for solar energy

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 generation. This type of installation is a win-win in that there are smaller transmission losses from power generated and used in the same location.

I believe as you do that net metering is of benefit to the ratepayers of Vermont. Vermont has been in the forefront of the renewable energy movement. It has not been without much time and effort that this has occurred. Now is the time to call for more renewable energy, and perhaps further incentives to make this a viable goal for all Vermonters. An act of good faith would be to continue or “grandfather in” all existing incentives for renewable energy projects large and small, leaving intact the structure that has placed Vermont in it’s leadership position.

Thank you, Lawrence O’Neill Putney, Vermont

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Peter Milliken Norwich, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, David Pauly Woodstock, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As the PSB considers altering Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy I hope it will do so in a way that does not dampen consumer demand for solar energy sources. Vermont should continue on the path to being a national leader in the adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State and I hope the legislature will look closely at these policies before making drastic changes to the net metering model.

Best,

Ed Meyer, East Thetford VT

Dear Clerk of the Board,

As the PSB considers changing Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy, I want to encourage it to do so in a way that doesn't dampen consumer demand for solar and other green" energy sources. It's clear to me that fossil fuel is not the way of the future, and that the shift toward green energy sources is inevitable.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State in terms of supporting the adoption of green energy sources. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition to a sustainable energy policy.

With best regards,

Dana Caspersen

Dear Clerk of the Board:

While other states are making it less economical go solar Vermont should up the game and make it more economical to produce green energy in the Green Mtn State. As the PSB considers altering Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy I hope it will do so in a way that does not dampen consumer demand for solar and other "green" energy sources. Anyone who is paying attention knows that we need to accelerate, not slow, our adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Daniel Hoviss

Putney VT

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Clerk of the Board:

I’ve read the proposed net metering rule (5.100). As the PSB considers altering Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy I hope it will do so in a way that does not dampen consumer demand for solar and other "green" energy sources. Anyone who is paying attention knows that we need to accelerate, not slow, our adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont must continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

I lead the churches of the United Church of Christ in MA, but my wife and I own a home in Norwich (where we will retire) and will soon install solar. VT – and the 49 other states – need you to LEAD.

Regards,

The Rev. Dr. Jim Antal Conference Minister and President Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ 1 Badger Rd. Framingham, MA 01702

Dear PSB,

As someone who installed a grid-tied solar system several years ago, I’d like to comment on the proposed changes in reimbursement.

Most of what I read in the press and in the comments submitted to PSB seems to have lost sight of the original intent of the grid tie reimbursement system. It was set up to encourage solar installations at a time when they were very uneconomical. By subsidizing them with high reimbursement rates, a solar manufacturing and installation ecosystem was promoted. As intended, as it grew it moved down the cost curve. Now solar is significantly less expensive than it was just 3 years ago, and far less expensive than 10 or 15 years ago. It took the actions of many forward-thinking states and countries (Germany was by far the most progressive) to achieve this, and it was a significant achievement.

The comments that those (“wealthy") folks who installed grid tie systems are unfairly shifting costs onto others miss the point completely. Of course those who don’t have grid-tie were going to pay more for power - anyone who denies this is being disingenuous. We agreed as a society to encourage solar (and other green) power. Everyone benefits from cleaner air, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and, most importantly, the reduction in cost of green power that resulted. Those who years ago accepted the offer promised by the grid-tie deal have hardly made money on the deal. If I’m at all indicative, we mostly lost money. Our contribution to this gain for society has been far greater than the cost borne by the average electric utility customer who does not yet have a solar system.

My 2.2 Kw rooftop solar system has averaged production of 2,000 kilowatt-hours per year. Net of tax credits, it cost me $8,800 three years ago. At the $0.21 high-tier power rate of WEC (and not all my power gets reimbursed at the top rate), I save a maximum of $420 per year on my electric bill. Optimistically assuming no damage or maintenance costs, that means a 21-year payback with no

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 interest. Clearly I didn’t do this for financial reasons - there are many ways I could have invested $8,800 more profitably and continued to consume more electric power from the grid. But I did believe that the offer on the table, reimbursement at the highest billing rate, was a long-term commitment of the State of Vermont.

Clearly as costs of solar installations have fallen, the deal needs to be changed. Ideally, reimbursement should drop gradually in step with the cost of solar. But those who installed the earlier systems should be grandfathered. Changing the deal we signed up for after the fact is nothing but bait-and-switch. Charging us a higher connect fee to compensate for our lower power charges dramatically changes the economics of our systems and defeats the original purpose of the deal. Carefully consider the consequences of playing us for fools - we are not likely to fall for such a promise again.

I suggest that you pick a “turning point” year for solar installation costs. Anyone who installed before that would get the full high-tier power reimbursement they believed they were going to get for the life of their system (call it 25 years). For each year following that turning point, reduce the reimbursement by a set amount (maybe 1 cent per kilowatt-hour) until you hit some agreed threshold. Yes, this is somewhat more complicated than a “one price fits all” approach, but it’s pretty easy to explain and to implement. And by more closely tying to the underlying economics, it’s fairer to all concerned. And please don’t create new charges such as a net-metering connection fee that undo the economics of the deal we made.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Michael Dornbrook 277 Pond View Rd. Walden, MA 05873

Dear Clerk of the Board: As the PSB considers altering Vermont's current, solar friendly, energy policy I hope it will do so in a way that does not dampen consumer demand for solar and other "green" energy sources. Anyone who is paying attention knows that we need to accelerate, not slow, our adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Jo Anne Post Peacham, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

As the PSB considers altering Vermont 's current, solar-friendly energy policies and regulations, I urge it to do so in a way that reflects Vermont consumers' (both residential and business) increasing demand for solar and other "green" energy sources. Incentives offered through Green Mountain Power (and

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 perhaps other entities) to community solar customers over the past few years have already been diminished by revised tariffs, and without ample voice of customers in Windham County.

As an investor in community solar, I believe the PSB would be wise to study ways to encourage switch- overs to non-fossil fuel energy production. Indeed, the switch to non-fossil energy sources is touted as part of Vermont's economic growth policy.

Several policies and regulations currently under PSB consideration, if adopted, would be a significant step backward for the State. Let's keep up the momentum toward cleaner energy palnning so that Vermont continues to be a leader in the transition away from fossil fuels.

Regards,

Louise Garfield Putney

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Six years ago I had solar panels installed on my roof, and I have been deeply pleased to be part of Vermont's move towards green energy sources.

I believe, however, that some of the changes currently being proposed to the net metering program will negatively impact consumer demand for solar and other green energy sources.

We need to accelerate, NOT slow, our adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production.

Please bear this in mind and help Vermont continue to be a leader in transitioning the state and the nation to green energy.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Christie Putney, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Regards, Vicky Bippart p.o. box 304 Norwich, VT 05055

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward for the State. Vermont should continue to be a leader in our transition from fossil fuels.

Regards, Kari Smith Dummerston, VT

Dear Clerk of the Board:

Respectfully,

The Ledford Family South Woodstock

To the VT Public Service Board,

I am a Randolph, VT resident and homeowner, with net-metered solar panels. I am writing to respectfully express my position against the proposed revisions.

It will be financially prohibitive for Vermonters to retain and retire their RECs under the new rule. I am proud of my individual contribution toward Vermont's 90% renewable energy goal and greenhouse gas reduction goals. There is no sound policy reason to penalize us by reducing our net metering credit

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 compared to a customer who turns their RECs over to the utility. It is bad public policy to compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a customer who sells the RECs out of state for profit and does not contribute renewable energy for Vermont. Currently there are too many deceptive solar marketing claims and this rule change will only worsen the situation.

I request that you amend Rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who go solar by retaining and retiring their RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the utility.

Sincerely, Courtney E. E. Collins

I am in support of Christine Hallquist , CEO, Vermont Electric Coop.

As times get harder and harder we need to use ideas to keep costs down so people can survive and benefit as a whole in Vermont. I expect you to do your part.

Jason Gray Newport Plant Manager

POULIN GRAIN, INC. 24 Railroad Square, Newport, VT 05855

Ms. Whitney,

In response to an email soliciting comments regarding the specific passage “Individual customer accounts may be enrolled in only one net-metering group at a time.” See Sec. 5.107(C) of Rule 5.100, we would like to offer brief comment. We have previously been asked by customers if this would be possible and remain somewhat conflicted on the matter. Overall in our experience the requests tend come from a lack of understanding as to the Group Net Metering mechanism by use meters. Though there are meters whose usage is so great that Net Metering is simply not worth considering, there are few of them in this State. The tying of the REC transfer to the Group credit serves in part to remedy this issue.

We feel first and foremost that allowing this to occur unavoidably opens up a Pandora's box of issues and possible abuses to satisfy a limited number of meters. Not the least among these concerns is that the structure effectively does one of several things. Either (a) the use meters must take control as administrator thus placing someone with motives not related to power production in the driver's seat or (b) the formation of the Group could create a hostile infrastructure with competing interests or (c) power producers will build multiple sites and collect them in a single Group effectively circumventing the statutory 500kW limit and mucking up the works in doing so. By this process the State would be creating a "virtual utility" architecture whereby plants could be shuffled between Groups with multiple generation sources. While we realize that our own interests would likely benefit from such a structure, the risks in our opinion are significant enough to make us pause.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

All in all, we feel that a better solution would be to do as other New England States have done and simply raise the capacity limit. This would serve to satisfy the concerns that are causal to the issue being raised and help to maintain the stability and security provided by the current Rule. This concept is the conservative approach to the issue at hand should the Board elect to take action. I have kept my comments limited for the time being. I would be happy to provide greater detail should the Board desire such. Respectfully,

Bill

William F. Scully Recurrent Hydro PO Box 338 North Bennington, Vermont 05257 (802) 379-2469

Dear Vermont Public Service Board:

As Vermonters who install solar for our homes and businesses, we believe that it is important to legally “go solar.” We want to be able to claim we consume the solar energy that is generated from our solar panels. It will be financially prohibitive for Vermonters to retain and retire their RECs under the new rule. Citizens, businesses, and community organizations who go solar contribute additional renewable energy toward Vermont’s 90% renewable energy goal and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

There is no sound policy reason to penalize us by reducing our net-metering credit compared to customers who turn their RECs over to the utility. Our decision to go solar has the same benefit to the climate and contributes equally toward Vermont’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. It is bad public policy to compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a customer who sells the RECs out of state for profit and does not contribute renewable energy for Vermont.

Furthermore, the proposed rule would harm Vermont’s local solar installers by putting them in an impossible position where they have to decide between having a viable, competitive business, or a business that actually sells solar to their customers. Currently there are too many deceptive solar marketing claims and this rule change will only worsen the situation. We respectfully request that you amend Rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who go solar by retaining and retiring their RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the utility.

Carolyn & Ted Shattuck, Rutland Town, Vermont

Dear Clerk of the Public Service Board,

I am writing about the PSB's consideration of new rules regarding solar energy generation. Vermont's current energy policy has been supportive of solar energy, and one impressive result has been growing

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 demand for solar, with encouraging expansion in the number of people generating solar energy. Such gains have been possible because of the policy that offers incentives for people to "go solar." Such incentives are truly important, making it possible for people to make the investment needed to install solar--knowing they will get back (amortize) their investment within a reasonable time period. I am proud to be a resident of a state that is leading in such initiatives.

I hope that in considering any changes to current policy that the PSB will refrain from making new rules that would dampen such consumer demand for solar and other green energy sources. Please do not go the way of Nevada! Climate change is a real, present threat. It is essential that Vermont do its part to increase, not undermine, adoption of non-fossil fuel energy production in the state.

Several of the policies that the PSB is currently considering would be a significant step backward. I urge you to insure that Vermont continues to be a leader in efforts to achieve transition from fossil fuels.

Sincerely yours,

Catharine Newbury East Thetford

To: Vermont Public Service Board

I am writing today regarding public comment on proposed changes to solar net metering rules on Act 99 service list.

I am a homeowner in Brattleboro Vermont with a small roof top solar net metered installation connected to GMP service. Recently there have a been a number of articles in the Brattleboro Reformer concerning proposed changes to the way that solar net metering is administered throughout the state of Vermont. I would like to respond to a couple of points that seem to be under consideration for change in the current program.

According to one of the articles there appears to be a desire to create a "new monthly fee for net- metering customers to cover the cost of maintaining poles and wires and other infrastructure." I do not believe that it would be wise or fair to create this new fee because we already pay a Customer Charge on our bill every single month (# days @ $0.43). I believe that this charge is supposed to cover administration costs and other grid related costs of business. And although we carry a negative balance with GMP throughout the year (due to our low electric usage v. high solar generation) the Customer Charge is still a positive charge each month. If we didn't effectively pay it our negative balance would be even greater (larger negative number). Also, remember that solar net-metering customers put up a large sum in personal investment in these systems and they are making substantial contributions of electricity back to the grid. Electricity that the utilities do not have to purchase elsewhere. Just because this program has been successful should not create the desire to make a money grab from the individuals and businesses that made the investment.

Additionally, the issue regarding Generation credits (@ $0.06 per KWH) and the policy of "taking back" those credits if not used in one year has created a perverse side-effect. That being, in order to use those credits before they expire, some customers (like ourselves) will be using more electricity than they might otherwise have done in order to burn down the excess credits. In other words customers that are trying

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 to be efficient and use less electricity will, in certain cases, find it advantageous to use use "more" electricity. This effect runs counter to one of the main goals and reasons for utilizing solar power. That is using a cleaner source of electricity and using less of it.

In closing, it would appear that the promotion and subsidy of encouraging residents and business to go solar in Vermont has been an overwhelming success. If the popularity of this programs was underestimated, that should not be a reason for making drastic monetary changes before the program has matured. If policies were not that well thought out it is not the fault of the customer base. Creating a new fee and changing other fee structures should only be done over a long period of time in order to fairly treat those entities that made the original investments and took the risk of working this new frontier of electricity generation and distribution.

Thank You, Richard Sullivan Brattleboro, VT 05301 802 257-0516

I am a member of Vermont Electric Cooperative. As a member, I am concerned about proposed rule 5.100 and the over market cost per kilowatt hour of net-metering that is passed along through rates to our membership. I am concerned that the cost, unless it is fairly priced, will hinder our ability to create and maintain a robust electric grid that can support renewable generation. It seems that a fair price would include a scale model that places large generation projects and household net metering projects at an appropriate ratio. If fewer members pay for their use of the grid without equitable cost sharing, then sustaining renewable generation will be impossible.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sally A. Lumbra 1219 Kinsley Road Fletcher, VT 05464

Please convey my support to the Board of the changes to the Net Metering rules advocated by Christine Hallquist, CEO, Vermont Electric Cooperative.

Specifically:

Everyone who uses the grid should contribute to maintain the grid.

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to the Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share.

Pricing for net metering should reflect market realities.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

The net metering program needs to be in line with the value of renewable energy to the Co-op, and also reflect how much it costs to develop this energy. The Co-op should not be required to overpay for net- metered energy, especially when we do not know if the price adequately reflects the cost of developing this energy because the private sector developers are not required to open their books to the public. We do know that renewable energy from the Standard Offer program is purchased for 13 cents per kilowatt- hour, but we are currently required to pay 19 or 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for net metered energy, which usually does not even include the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), meaning that it cannot legally be considered renewable energy. We are not convinced that the above-market rate is justifiable or sustainable, especially since the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small- scale net metering.

Thank you,

Trip Wileman Lowell, VT

Members of the PSB:

I'm writing to you to urge you to adopt rules that encourage the use of renewable energy while also ensuring that net metering reflects the type of service we want to encourage. Net metering should benefit individuals, not large corporate developers who "eat up" the available allotment. The cost of net metering should reflect what it costs to develop the energy. As a member of the Vermont Electric Co-op, it is important to me that renewables are supported in a sustainable way. Please make sure that net metering continues in a way that is fairly priced.

Sincerely, Morgan Wade Canaan, VT 802-266-7066

I am a VEC member that wants a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. The net metering program needs to be in line with the value of renewable energy to the Co-op, and also reflect how much it costs to develop this energy. The Co-op should not be required to overpay for net- metered energy, especially when we do not know if the price adequately reflects the cost of developing this energy because the private sector developers are not required to open their books to the public. We do know that renewable energy from the Standard Offer program is purchased for 13 cents per kilowatt- hour, but we are currently required to pay 19 or 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for net metered energy, which usually does not even include the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), meaning that it cannot legally be considered renewable energy. We are not convinced that the above-market rate is justifiable or sustainable, especially since the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small- scale net metering.

George Goldsworthy 1363 IRONGATE RD

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

CAMBRIDGE VT 05444

My husband and I recently purchased a home in the great state of Vermont because of its natural treasures and quality of life. As a VEC member, we want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Please support this!

Thank you for your consideration.

Michele and Andrew Burger Grand Isle, Vermont

PSB of Vermont,

I strongly encourage you to reconsider this upcoming legislation. The fact that net metering rules proposed in 5.100 create an unsustainable model is disturbing given the pressures facing Vermont rate and tax payers. The alternative options promoting renewable energy in more practical, fiscally responsible ways do exist! Why the PSB has chosen to focus more on politics than sound engineering and physics is beyond me. Please understand that I and most Vermonters wish to continue our support of renewable energy initiatives. However, to continually pressure us with unnecessary costs in the presence of smarter, more rational solutions will not stand. We are watching and will continue to demand sensible action from the PSB and the legislature.

Cordially,

Adam A. Lory Hyde Park, Vermont

Dear PSB Members,

I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced and I strongly support Vermont Electric Cooperative's position on this matter.

Thank You for Your Attention,

Jeremy C. Wintersteen P.O. Box 193, Irasburg, VT 05845

Dear Board Members,

I have recently learned that Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) estimates that at current net metering levels, VEC consumers will pay about $1.5 million more annually for net-metered energy than the value that energy provides to the Co-op.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

VEC members cannot have an unlimited amount of net metering at these inflated rates without causing financial harm to the members.

As a VEC member, I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Sincerely,

Steve ______Steven L Mason 52 Finnegan Road Lowell, VT 05847 (802) 744-6600 [email protected]

Please keep net metering as it is for private, single home renewable projects. Net metering was not put in place to encourage a new power company into the mix. These large farms that are meant to create power for a profit should not take their profits from the hands of homeowners. Solar farms do not need to be subsidized in the same way that the gas and oil industries should not be getting government subsidies either.

Thanks for all you do, Eric

Eric Weiss 325 West Shore Rd Alburgh, VT

As a VEC member, I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. All members should pay for the maintenance and upgrading of the grid. It isn't fair to us low income Vermonters to have to cover the cost for people who can afford solar or wind energy. I would love to have roof solar panels; I simply cannot afford them.

Susan Boucher Holland, VT

Dear PSB,

I was contacted by my power company VEC to support owners with net metering pay a connection/service fee. I do not agree with that proposal for residential customers under a 15kw system. I do currently have a 5.8kw PV system that was installed in 2014 and the reason I installed the system was for 2 reasons. First creating renewable power to do my part in helping the environment. Second for financial stability. Before I had the panels installed I was told there would be a fixed solar

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 added for 10 years and no connection fee. For this reason it made it financially feasible to incur the large investment cost of the PV system and pay for it over the next 12 years.

Now VEC would like all net metering members to pay a connection fee. At the current rate and including a 2% inflation per year over 25 year that would add an additional cost burden of about $6700.00 or an additional 5 to 6 year of return on investment. Now if I would have known upfront in the decision phase that with VEC’s proposal my return on investment would be 17 to 18 years I would have not installed a PV system thus not helping the environment. This doesn’t include the maintenance cost which would push the return on investment even further.

I proposed that current net metering residential customers under 15kw be grandfathered into the current system. It was this current system that made it feasible to go solar. For new customers if VEC is truly being burdened with extra cost those new installations may be charged a fee. Those new customer would know the extra cost and could then decide if a PV system is fanatically feasible.

PV system are a long term investment. Owners need to have a fixed price structure otherwise legislation or the power companies can change the price per KW and fees that would hurt the residential roof top PV customer.

Thank You Steve Rainville 272 Wilkins Rd Fairfax, VT 05454

Please protect our individual consumer rights by passing this proposal. Current policy has led to more than half of VEC net metering capacity to be taken up by developer driven, large-scale projects, rather than household rooftop net metering. This creates financial hardship for VEC and many Co-op members. Not only do these developers not care about the customers of VEC but are only taking advantage of current options to make themselves rich at the expense of individual customers. This takes away the opportunity for those who are interested in at home sited solar while also increasing the cost of electricity for all of the VEC customers. The PUBLIC Service Board should be looking out for the individual consumers.

Ruth E Duckless 238 Terrice Drive Newport, VT 05855

As a member of a member owned electric utility (Vermont Electric Co-op) I am writing to advocate for a net metering rule which includes:

1) Grid service fees. All users of the of the grid should share the cost of maintaining the grid. 2) Pricing closer to market value for net metering power rather than the current $.19 or $.20 mandated rate.

William Hickson

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I am firmly opposed to rules such as this that require VEC to unfairly pay more than our fair share. This rule flies in the face of equal protection under the law under the guise of promoting renewable energy. I am fed up with big developers getting unfair advantages for political reasons.

Anthony Palagonia

I am a Williston resident and a customer of Vermont Electric Co-op. Regarding proposed Rule 5.100, I would like to express my strong conviction that the final version of this rule should not include a grid service fee, and should continue to provide every incentive reasonably possible, financial and otherwise, for both businesses and private citizens to add to Vermont's renewable energy generation capacity. Some individuals and organizations are championing a short-sighted approach that penalizes owners of renewable energy systems and disregards the value of renewable energy for the crucial project of fighting climate change as well as its value in the local economy.

Best wishes, Luc Reid 1868 Old Creamery Road Williston (802) 355-0635

VEC members want a net-metering system that is sustainable and fairly priced. thank you, David Comeau Newport

I am a customer of the Vermont Electric Cooperative.

I believe that everyone who uses the grid should contribute to maintain the grid.

I also believe that pricing for net metering should reflect market realities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul Lacey 64 Wightman Hill Rd Richford, Vermont 05476-9617

Please be advised that we are in favor of a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. We, as a working-class Vermont family cannot take on any more increases in utilities. Please consider the working people of Vermont. Thanks.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Kelly and Reginald McLain 325 North Road Guildhall, VT 05905

Net metering, the cost of power should be fairly priced and sustainable Kenneth Griswold

I am a VEC member and have been for over 40 years. Please make sure that any net-metering program is sustainable and fairly priced.

The net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electric grid that can support increased renewable generation, since the ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid.

Claudia Cusson 535 Delfrate Rd Huntington, Vt 05462

As a paying member of VEC we support proposal 5.100 so net metering pays their fair share.

Joseph and Sheila Franz

I'm writing to voice my concern that any net metering policies be sustainable and fair. I'm a Vermont Electric Coop customer and hope not to pay the cost to service those not on the grid.

June Campbell

I am writing to state my concern over the proposed changes to solar net metering. I installed solar last June and am not breaking even on my electricity costs as they are now. With the cost of installing solar so high and with no state incentive to install, it will make less sense for more people to go solar. Changing net metering may be what the utility companies want, but as a tax paying citizen of this highly taxed state, I am outraged at the proposition. Vermont prides itself on being "Green" - and not just because of the landscape. This proposition goes against everything for which Vermont stands. If the Program must be revised, it should be done in favor of those who currently have taken the risk to install solar, and provide incentives to those that wish to install solar. I hope the PSB makes their decision in the best interest of the public, not special interest groups, like the utility companies. I'd look to consolidating utility companies, reducing overhead, and transition displaced utility workers to alternative energy jobs - that makes better financial and environmental sense.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time in reading this. Fingers crossed that the PSB will do the right thing - serve the PUBLIC as a Public Service Board should

Sincerely, Shanie Bartlett Underhill, Vermont

With regard to the proposed rule 5. 100 I would like to let you know that as a member of VEC I would want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. In particular large, developer driven projects need to pay a fair price maintaining the infrastructure they use to distribute the energy they generate.

Thank you for your consideration. Elke Pinn

Public Service Board,

Having been an electrical contractor for over 25 years I can understand utilities concern over having to buy and pay a premium for energy from net metered projects. This is especially true since the producer is not not required to pay any fees for use of the power companies distribution systems. Without net metering the producer would need to invest in storage batteries etc and the cost of maintaining them so it only makes sense that they pay to use the power companies network in lieu of investing in storage batteries etc. As it is now they use the utilities as a storage bank (Battery Bank)at no cost to them yet there is a cost of maintaining the grid shoulder by regular rate payers.

Also with the incentives to install a net metering system I feel they should only be allowed to sell and the electric utility company to buy at the current rates that they can purchase the power from elsewhere. Having to pay a premium hurts the utility companies and in the case of a Coop it’s members.

Bottom line is net metered projects are not “off-grid” and should pay their fair share of line maintenance fees same as a typical user does to the power company serving them. Also should not get more per KW then what the utility current rates are.

Also the ability to sell REC’s out of State needs to be stopped, so power generated in Vermont call truly be called renewable.

Thanks you

Dennis Lantagne Gate's Electric Inc.

Dear Members of the PSB, As members of the VEC, we believe that everyone who uses the grid should pay to maintain the grid. The Net Metering Program should include an appropriate grid service fee. We also believe that we need

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 pricing for Net Metering that is fair and reflects market realities. We hope you will take this into consideration when setting policy. Sincerely, Barbara and Bruce Sherman

To the Public Service Board:

I am a member customer of Vermont Electric Co-op and I have a solar array which provides net-metered energy to the Co-op. I agree with VEC's advocacy that any new net metering rule include a grid use charge to defray the cost of any utility's and any user's use of the electric grid. I also believe that the PSB has a duty to assure the economic viability of all electric utilities, which vary in their customers' usage profiles, by establishing renewable purchase rates that do not unduly threaten that viability. Thank you for your consideration.

Leslie Nulty P.O. Box 1121 Jericho Center, VT 05465

Good morning:

I have a private solar system and would be willing to do my share. I think business units should be treated different.

Private systems could maybe have a line fee that could be taken out of any excess. But to be fair, if someone pays the line fee and still has a surplus, it should not just go back into the grid. They should be paid for the surplus. If not I would be paying twice.

Thanks. Randy

Dear Public Service Board-

I am a member of Vermont Electric Cooperative and I am writing because I want you to make sure the new net metering rules are financially sustainable. I think it is only fair that people that use the grid pay their fair share for the cost of maintaining the grid, including those that use the grid to net meter. This is the only way to ensure that we have safe and reliable electric service at all times. The new net metering rules need to include an appropriate grid service fee for everyone who uses the grid. Also, low income Vermonters cannot afford to contribute to paying above market rates for renewable energy. We should only pay what we need to and no more. We expect and rely on the Public Service Board to develop rules that consider the needs of all Vermonters. Thank you.

L Murch 2965 W Shore Rd

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Isle La Motte, VT 05463

Dear Sir/Madam,

In reference to proposed rule 5.100

It is submitted that: Everyone who uses the grid should contribute to maintain the grid.

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to our electric Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share. An appropriate grid service fee will assist in this matter.

Thank-you

Ferdinand Alfieri VEC residential member Richford, Vermont

We want a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced not developer driven by large scale projects but by Household small scale net-metering.

Thank you, Hibbard Doe Richford

Hello

I am writing to oppose paying more than the current selling price for solar net-metering. Customer should still be responsible for paying the monthly charges that are not based on their power usage. Paying more than the selling price is not fair to all the other customers.

Thank you

David Dewyea 1 Mott Lane South Hero, VT 05486

We want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Edmund Wells

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

All users of the grid should be required to pay their fair share. VEC members want a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Cathy Neff St George, VT

Dear Public Service Board members:

As a solar customer in Vermont, I am very concerned about the draft Net Metering rule 5.100. I went solar in order to do my part to combat climate change and fix my family’s energy costs as we head into retirement while adding value to my home. Based on the current draft rules, I think it’s unlikely Vermonters will continue to make the decision to go solar, setting back our progress on clean energy goals.

Your support for renewable energy is critical. Please ensure that Vermonters who want solar will have predictability and certainty when they are choosing solar by striking the fees and ensuring fair rates for net-metered renewable power. Please also keep the state’s promise to Vermonters who have already installed solar, grandfathering the program for at least 25 years, and provide that same level of predictability so that more Vermonters can go solar.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue, I am counting on you to keep it possible for Vermonters to choose clean energy now and in the future.

Sincerely, Dennis and Marie Moore Georgia Vermont

Dear Vermont Public Service Board:

As Vermonters who install solar for our homes and businesses, we believe that it is important to legally "go solar." We want to be able to claim we consume the solar energy that is generated from our solar panels. It will be financially prohibitive for Vermonters to retain and retire their RECs under the new rule. Citizens, businesses, and community organizations who go solar contribute additional renewable energy toward Vermont's 90% renewable energy goal and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

There is no sound policy reason to penalize us by reducing our net metering credit compared to a customer who turns their RECs over to the utility. Our decision to go solar has the same benefit to the climate and contributes equally toward Vermont’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. It is bad public policy to compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a customer who sells the RECs out of state for profit and does not contribute renewable energy for Vermont.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

We respectfully request that you amend Rule 5.100 to credit Vermonters who go solar by retaining and retiring their RECs for Vermont greenhouse gas reductions in a similar manner to those who turn their RECs over to the utility.

I completely disagree with the approach that Vermont Electric Cooperative has taken towards net metering, both in their roll out of existing program, and them being behind the big push to change the rules. They are truly a green unfriendly cooperation, and I wish you would disband them, and have GMP take over their service territories. Would definitely be a big boost for rates paid by rate payers of the "cooperative" which seems more concerned with bottom lines than the public good company GMP does, which clearly welcomes new energy sources.

Sincerely Matthew Dall 393 US RT 2 Grand Isle, VT 05458

To VT Public Service Board,

As a VEC member I am writing to let you know I do not support VEC's position on renewable energy development. I am not happy that VECs CEO C. Halquist does not support our States long term renewable energy goals and does not see the required costs justified. It is my view that we as a society need to pay forward on this issue. Furthermore I believe distributed energy generation is the future especially as grid storage capabilities are developed. Consequently, Utilities need to improve their skills in managing a grid with larger percentages of renewable sources, which by their nature, are less reliable. It is my feeling that VEC does not want to deal with more distributed generation in the system and is using cost to veil the real concerns.

I should let you know that I was encouraged by a Halquist emailing to send a comment contrary to the above. I should also say that it has been my experience that VEC under Halquist leadership has provided myself excellent service. Other than their position on distributed renewable energy I have no complaints.

Sincerely Jeff Chapman

Dear Public Service Board-

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 and rely on the Public Service Board to develop rules that consider the needs of all Vermonters. Thank you.

L Murch 2965 W Shore Rd Isle La Motte, VT 05463

As a Vermont Electric COOP member, I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Pricing should be at a market value, not arbitrarily set so high that it costs more than it’s value— the VEC would go out of business and/or cost it’s members far more for electricity than is economically sustainable. And, the VEC would have no money to improve the grid. The issue is further complicated by large solar “farms”, developer-driven, large-scale projects, that are also receiving a high per-watt rates. These large-scale projects should absolutely not be part of the net-metering process—they should sell electricity at market rates.

Thank you. ______Tom Pasley

Dear PSB: As billing paying and voting members of VEC we support any and all action the VEC has recommended for sustainable and fairly priced net-metering program. You need to keep the program usable by the common user and not just the developers out for a corporate profit.

Gordon & Carolyn Lesperance Westfield, VT 802-744-6880

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a Vermont Electric Coop member. In regard to proposed Rule 5.100, I encourage the board to create sustainable and fairly priced net-metering rules. It is outrageous that the Coop will pay nearly $1.5 million annually for net metered energy. This is a financial hardship to the company and its members and society as a whole. Please create sustainable and fairly priced net metering rules.

Thank you,

Jerry D. Pion

Public Service Board:

Regarding proposed rule 5.100, as a Vermont Electric Cooperative member I request that the Board adopt rules that:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

1) Promote small-scale, household net metering projects over large-scale, developer-driven projects.

2) Include an appropriate "grid service" fee.

3) Set pricing for net metered energy that reflects market realities and costs to develop the energy.

4) Discourages practice of selling RECs outside Vermont. Thank you for your attention.

Byron Dolan 6777 VT Rte 100 Lowell, Vermont

I'm a blue collar retiree, having lived, worked and gone to school in Vermont these past 63 years. I was raised to believe that the essentials to life are food, clothing and warm shelter in winter. We cannot and must not cater state programs to the elite few who already have the resources and good fortune to go all solar or any other renewable energy source they choose. It is trendy and even fashionable to claim a higher environmental lifestyle, but when you charge your poorer neighbors for the cost of your own 'better' lifestyle, it is a false and hollow claim. I, like many old stock Vermonters, do not have the property location that will work well for either solar or wind energy production. I do have an old one room schoolhouse that I have saved and restored at great personal expense and labor. No one subsidized any of my costs.

I resent the prospect of higher electrical costs, higher fuel costs and higher taxes designated to benefit the few who already have more resources than my family.

The Vermont Electric Coop has struggled to keep rates fair for the average member. Do not make their work impossible by granting ever higher subsidies to small and large wind/solar producers who reap all the profits and give nothing back to the community. Either we are equal as humans when seeking the essentials to life, or the old 'nobility' class is now emerging wearing the fashionable clothing branded "Renewable".

Concernedly,

Michael Alger 141 Adams School Road Grand Isle, Vt

Writing to let you know as a VEC member I would like the net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Thank you Larry Sweeney

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

To the PSB:

As a member of VEC, I support VEC's position on the need for a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. It is especially important to me that unfair advantages are not given to developer- driven, large-scale projects to the detriment of household, small-scale net metering. I believe strongly that a successful renewable energy policy depends on building a grid that is tailored more toward small- scale, distributed systems, and less toward large-scale systems that can have serious detrimental impacts on the communities where they are built. Please consider these priorities as you craft changes to the net metering program in Vermont.

Thank you.

Robert Dana Belvidere, VT

VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Residential members should not bear the burden while big business gets the breaks. Let’s make it equitable.

Lorna Rush Homeowner in Island Pond Vermont

We need a net metering that is sustainable and fairly priced. As a VEC member owner this is very important to me.

Thank you. Deb Nevil

As a VEC member and regarding proposed rule 5.100, I want a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced; thank you

Real Duteau Isle La Motte, VT

I support VEC's position that the rate paid for net metered electricity should be fairly priced. Net metered generators should be charged appropriately for their use of the grid. Solar power availability in VT is only 14% based on the data stated by commercial project developers, i.e. the capacity of a project vs the expected generated amount. That is equivalent to only 1 day / week on an annual basis. Seasonally the availability in the winter is much less than that. Therefore renewable generators should pay for their fair share for the use of the grid that is maintained by PUCs.

Sincerely, George J. Mincar

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Huntington

Please support a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. The process should be designed to include as many household/rooftop solar installations as possible, rather than continuing to support developer-driven, large-scale projects that claim more than their fair share of the total net- metering capacity.

Thanks - Dick Dick Sears Principal Firmware Engineer BioTek Instruments, Inc

VEC Members need a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Thank you Lucio and Armande Monass Alburgh

As a member of the Vermont Electric Cooperative I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. I support renewable electric production but the price paid for that power must become realistic. The creators of that power net to pay a real price to be on the net.

Richard Goff Cambridge

I would like to see the Net-Metering Program implemented.

M. Schum

I am a VEC members and want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

I support renewable energy, and want the net metering program to work towards this goal in a cost- effective manner. But I should not have to pay more the value the net metering provides.

I propose that everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid.

The net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electric grid that can support increased renewable generation, since their ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid.

Thanks, Marlyne Bashaw

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont Public Service Board:

The Thetford Energy Committee, with the Strafford Energy Committee, is in the process of developing a community, group net-metered solar array for the benefit of the town of Thetford and the residents of the two towns. Our goal is to support Vermont’s plan to be 90% renewable by 2050 by retiring the RECs. We feel we are actively promoting the State’s plan by publicizing our effort as helping the State reach its renewable goal by encouraging people to keep the solar attributes bundled with the array.

A careful reading of 5.100 and 8005 makes clear that the regulations create a pathway for Vermont to reach its goal of 90% renewable by 2050. And yet Ruling 5.100 provides a financial disincentive for a community array, or an individual homeowner, to retire their RECs. For many people, this disincentive will be profoundly discouraging. It will likely slow the development of renewable energy in the state and thereby threaten the State’s ability to meet its goals.

Please reconsider the financial penalty imposed on those who retain and retire their RECs.

Sincerely, Bob Walker Chair, Thetford Energy Committee Thetford Center

Dear PSB members,

Concerning the "Proposed Rule 5.100" Its bad enough that Vermont Yankee was removed from our gird for cheap Nuclear power at 4.5 cents per Kilowatt-hour, but to now be forced to pay the higher prices for the Renewable electric sources at 13 cents per kilowatt-hour along with the extra fees for the net-metering program is not right and must changed. The utility that is providing the renewable power must bear the cost of all net-metering and any maintenance fees required to use such power.

Pricing for net metering reflects market realities. The net metering program needs to be in line with the value of renewable energy to the Co-op, and also reflect how much it costs to develop this energy. The Co-op should not be required to overpay for net- metered energy, especially when we do not know if the price adequately reflects the cost of developing this energy because the private sector developers are not required to open their books to the public. We do know that renewable energy from the Standard Offer program is purchased for 13 cents per kilowatt- hour, but we are currently required to pay 19 or 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for net metered energy, which usually does not even include the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), meaning that it cannot legally be considered renewable energy. We are not convinced that the above-market rate is justifiable or sustainable, especially since the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small- scale net metering.

VEC estimates that at current net metering levels, we will pay about $1.5 million more annually for net- metered energy than the value that energy provides to the Co-op. We cannot have an unlimited amount of net metering at these inflated rates without causing financial harm to members.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Respectfully Philip Gaboriault Maidstone

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that the Vermont Electric Co-op (of which I am a member) is having to pay more for energy from the net-metering program than the energy is worth. I appreciate the work of the VEC, its grid, its co-operative structure, and its openness to net-metering and alternative energy but I am concerned that the current net-metering structure is unsustainable. Everyone who uses the grid should help pay for it. And the cost of the energy should reflect market realities. Please take this into consideration regarding the Proposed Rule 5.100.

I appreciate you attention to this matter and your time to read my letter.

Sincerely,

Sara Lourie (VEC satisfied customer)

To Whom it May Concern,

As a member of VEC I want to go on record that I will only support a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced for members. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Joyce Dunn South Hero

Good Afternoon As a long standing member of VEC CO-OP I support a net metering process that is fair and equitable to all of the members. That being said the members who do not use the net metering process should not be held liable for costs associated with it. Regards Joe McKenzie

Vermont Public Service Board:

Please keep the grid service fee out of the final rule. Remember that those who install renewable energy also invest in infrastructure and the electric companies do not have to expand their infrastructure to meet the needs met through private installation and net metering. Also there is a charge which we pay for the installation of net metering.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

The electric companies need to spend more $'s on renewable infrastructure for their generation-- especially VEC.

Thank you.

Char and Bill Kennedy Grand Isle

Vermont Public Service Board

I am concerned about the lack of local control over the installation of large (over 100kW?) commercial solar arrays in RURAL areas that do NOT primarily serve local and onsite users. What GMPC and Suncommon are trying to do in our area is open up our ag land and scenic vistas to these industrial sized arrays for the sole, or at least primary, purpose of selling the solar credits out of state.

Not only do the host property owners get minimal compensation for substantially decreasing their land values, and do not contribute to decreasing the fossil fuel imprint in VT (although they are often told otherwise), the neighboring property owners get Nothing except a substantial decrease in their own property values and the `benefit' of having their rural landscape transformed into a site for industrial scaffolding .

What, if anything, is the current bill doing to address this issue??

Sincerely, bill marks Hinesburg

Hello,

We are a Vermont family that is a recent purchaser of a solar installation and heat pump for our single family home. During our decision making process we considered many things. For example, we felt making this purchase would help us support responsible sourcing our energy usage from a clean, renewable source, also that the return on investment by implementing the solar system to producing the vast majority of our electrical power (albeit a longterm return) was actually viable, and that the Vermont net metering program (NEP) through Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) was available to us as current owners of a single family home in their service area. Our understanding of the NEP, through VEC, was that the program simply was crafted to encourage and enable Vermont home owners to invest in the renewable, clean energy generated by the sun. We were shocked and saddened to learn that developer-driven, large-scale projects have been allowed to be part of current NEP. More disturbing than that, greater than half of current NEP of VEC is going to these projects rather than to Vermont private home owners. Granted, there should be incentive for large-scale developers to source their developer-driven, large-scale projects with clean, renewable solar power but their incentive should be a single time fee per unit and not the ongoing NEP intended for home owners that finance solar energy systems on their own. Nor should the purchasers of the developers’ residences be offered NEP once they purchase their residences sold with solar power. In this way, NEP would no longer be subsidizing

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 builders and developers which was not the intent of NEP in the first place, but would still offer a them incentive to install solar in their building projects. NEP would then truly support Vermont single families hoping to do their part of helping to sustain the planet by installing solar energy systems in their homes.

We would hope that these ideas/concerns would be taken into account by the PSB and that Vermonters want a NEP that is designed to support a program that is sustainable and fairly priced for individual Vermonters that finance their own individual solar installations and not to support developer-driven, large-scale projects with NEP funding.

Sincerely,

Susan and Lynn Lang Essex, Vermont

Apr 28, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Vermont has long been one of the most environmentally conscientious states. That's one of the top reasons we relocated our family here after years abroad in military service. To maintain that honorable standing, it's important to remain on the cutting edge of advancements that reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase our dependence on renewable resources that are, in the long run, far less expensive, are more durable and will not run out, be subject to environmentally decimating spills, or emit toxins into the atmosphere when used. Solar energy is a tried and true way to increase our use of renewable energy and reduce energy costs to individual citizens. I applaud the efforts that make going solar affordable. However, we've all become aware that producers of more traditional, fossil-fuel based energy are not supportive of evolving to more suitable, less damaging sources of energy. In fact, there are many initiatives around the country to dissuade Americans from turning to renewable energy. We must not be deterred by such ploys. Net metering helps citizens realize far lower dependence on fossil fuels energy sources, as does the absence of a grid service fee. These incentives must be maintained and we must also ensure the commitment to clean energy does not change or falter by not altering rules and guidelines which effectively penalize those who have already transitioned to clean energy, nor those who wish to. Any ambiguity that allows this position to falter goes against the commitment to clean energy. Finally, since clean energy is a new and evolving effort, it's important to consider that not every location was built to support solar arrays. Guidelines need to allow for flexibility to build group arrays or to place arrays on such alternative locations as parking lots and landfills. The commitment to clean energy is one we make for ourselves, our world and our children's future; it must not fall prey to any tactics that stall, dissuade or halt its progress.

Sincerely,

Toni Tempel Navarro Colchester

Dear Sir,

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As a member of VEC, I am writing to encourage you to maintain net metering that is sustainable and fairly priced. VEC has improved the electric service to North Hero immeasurably over the 40 years I have been an electric customer there and I can only hope it will be affordable for my grandchildren as well.

Yours truly,

Margaret Rakas North Hero

Dear Clerk,

I feel the net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's progress for a better future for everyone and is another Vermont rule that will surly drive more people out of this state if approved. If you use the grid and you’re in the "co-op" than you need to pay your fair share like everyone else does. Some of this government BS has no merit for the common folks and this is a perfect example!

Wayne Russell Chem Ops/ AEC

Apr 28, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I recently installed solar panels on my house and one of the attractive features was the net metering options that were offered. May friends and neighbors have been asking me about this renewable option. If the net metering portion goes away, I believe it would make the decision much more difficult for others to go this route.

Sincerely,

Lon Finkelstein South Burlington

Please put me on record as requesting that you consider only fairly priced, sustainable net metering arrangement for VEC. Open books for all involved parties seems to me to be an appropriate way to proceed.

I have been a member of VEC since 1999.

Thank you, Florrie Paige

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I am a customer of Vermont Electric in Richford,Vt.,and want to make you aware that the net-metering program should be funded by all users and not by those of us who pay but don't contribute power to the grid.

Thanks, Alton Lothian

Dear Sir/Madam,

VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. We cannot afford to pay over market rates for net metering. Persons using net metering use the grid to receive and distribute power and should not be exempt from charges that support the grid. This is an unfair burden on the other members of the coop who are not net meter patrons and who do pay to maintain the grid that supports all customers.

Thank you,

Dale R. Copping Jeffersonville

Vermont Public Service Board

Specific concerns about proposed changes to net metering:

1) The revised rule does not include a grid service fee. This would be a new monthly fee for the right to go renewable that would drive up the cost of net metering, and drive down participation. The Board should keep the grid service fee out of the final rule.

2) As currently written, the grandfathering section is ambiguous. The Board should be crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people who have already gone renewable and isn't changing the rules they're operating under.

3) The proposed rates will make it harder to build group solar arrays, limiting options for Vermonters who don't have a suitable roof themselves. Furthermore the rule does not provide additional incentives necessary to actually get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. The Board should address this.

Please consider the above options at the meeting.

Sincerely,

Bill and Bonnie Duncan Hyde Park

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont Public Service Board

I'm a concerned Vermonter that is committed to transitioning to renewable energy and hope that Vermont laws would encourage this healthy and sustainable goal. The proposed rates will make it more difficult to build solar arrays, limiting options for Vermonters who don't have a suitable roof, like myself. Furthermore, the rules do not provide additional incentives necessary to actually get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. I think the board should address this. The Board should be clear that Vermont is keeping its' commitment to people who have already committed to renewable energy and isn't changing the rules they are operating under. Lastly, the Board should keep the grid service fee out of the final rule as to not be a source of driving up the cost of net metering. Thank you for your consideration and I am looking forward to 100% renewable energy within my lifetime.

Sincerely,

Vincent Miller Williston

Vermont Public Service Board

Please continue net metering and in fact, expand upon it. All participants who currently have gone renewable should not have any of the rules change, and in fact, those rules should continue to apply to all new customers of renewables.

Keep the grid service fee out. Solar and other renewables are the cheapest form of energy our utilities have ever gotten, customers make all the investment and the utility sells the power. There is no reason to tack on a grid fee. If anything, there should be a one time payment from the utility to the solar producer that offsets the investment the consumer is making for the benefit of the utility.

The board should make rates better for anyone putting up renewables. Again, this model is amazing. The customer invest in the cost of producing energy and the utility gets the benefit. There needs to be additional incentive for customers to be investing in renewables. Make the rates reflect that.

Sincerely, Julie Elmore Westford

Vermont Public Service Board

We are committed to lowering our carbon footprint as much as possible through energy efficiency and renewable energy choices. The State of Vermont has publicly stated that renewable energy and efficiency programs are the path of choice as a whole. Please keep the net metering rules simple and do not raise barriers for new people to join in the program.

10 years ago we invested $20,000 in our net metered solar panels. On some days we create more energy than we use and on other days we do not. We pay a customer service charge to the utilities and

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 essentially purchased our electricity for the last 10 years and the next 15 or more years already. Our solar panels benefit the community in that they reduce the need for expensive and highly polluting peak energy systems to be provided by the utility. Please consider that we are essentially a mini utility, with a certificate of public good, and not a drain on the system as some would suggest. The more people who invest in net metering make the job of the utilities easier.

Please do not make it harder for people to choose to invest in net metering as it is a benefit to everyone in the electric system.

Sincerely,

Elisa Nelson Burlington

I am a member of the VEC. It is hard to understand that these industrial solar projects have to be paid more than what the VEC charges its customers. It looks like to me the consumer is willing be making up the difference. The PSB needs to fix this.

Steve Carpenter Newport

To Whom It May Concern,

I am responsible for two VECO accounts and want to indicate that net metering should be to the benefit of the customers and not large scale developers.

Thank you,

Stephen Ludwig North Hero

Everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid.

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to the Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share.

For the above reasons I strongly agree that providers of this energy also pay for the Grid & Grid Maintenance, so please include Proposed Rule 5.100.

Henry Gabert Property Owner in Essex & Grand Isle Vt.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As a member of VEC I am concerned about the net metering program. VEC members want a net- metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. It is imperative that everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid. The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to the Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Brown, Alburgh, VT

Vermont Public Service Board

Five years ago we had a solar electric array installed. It was a very large investment and took very serious thought about what we would have to give up now to have savings in the future and also do our part to help the planet. We are both retired. After going through the numbers and calculating the monthly savings and time it would take to recoup our investment, we took money from our retirement savings to make the purchase. It seemed like a good investment. The system is currently generating enough electricity to meet approximately 70% of our demand. Vermont, as a state, was strongly behind solar energy and put forth ambitious goals for the state to transition off of fossil fuel. If you change the rules upon which we relied on to make this investment, we may not live to recoup our funds and recognize the savings we had counted on. We did our part by sacrificing up front. We hope that we can count on Vermont to keep its part of the bargain and not change the rules upon which we based our decision to invest. Sincerely, Walter Martone

Sincerely,

Walter Martone Springfield

I support Vermont Electric Cooperative’s position on the subject. Ron Emery Maidstone, VT

VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid. The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee.

VEC Member, Sandra Edwards

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing about net metering as a customer of Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC). I am talking from personal experience: My home happens to be exceptionally well suited for solar electricity, I have the resources to install the solar panels, and I would like to do so. But I cannot. Middlemen (“community solar”) have rushed in. The net metering cap of VEC has already been reached. This effectively blocks homeowners like me from solar energy. Besides, the profits to the middlemen that originate from net metering obviously come at the expense of the majority of utility customers.

Straight net metering must go. A compensation to the utilities for the distribution cost of electricity should be included in the price that the utilities pay for the electricity generated with solar cells. An artificially controlled price (of anything) that deviates substantially from fair market value is an invitation for someone to take advantage. Here, money is being transferred from the pockets of the average utility customers to the community solar middlemen.

Utilities like VEC, being monopolies, must be regulated. But electricity from solar cells appears to have come close enough to economic breakeven that one should start preparing for the return to close-to free market conditions. Everyone would benefit in the end, even the more adept of the community solar entrepreneurs who will develop a sustainable business model.

Sincerely,

Juha Javanainen, Eden

Vermont Public Service Board

I am on the Springfield Town energy Committee and strongly urge the Public Service Board to honor Vermont's commitment to go renewable and to offer incentives for solar arrays to get built on current brownspace, rooftops, etc, to not include a grid service fee, and to keep the commitment to people who have already gone renewable.

Sincerely,

Charlotte Osterlund Springfield

Vermont Public Service Board

Just a short note stating the Public Service Board should consider the recommendation of VPIRG and leave out the service fee for those Vermonters who wish to convert to Solar. Vermont should be encouraging the use of alternate energy sources. Jerome

Sincerely,

Jerome Bolkum, Barre

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont Public Service Board

Sincerely,

Jerome Bolkum Barre,

Apr 29, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I invested in Solar energy in 2008 and have been part of Vermont's net metering program for many years. It is an excellent program. Vermont needs to ensure that the new rules grandfather everyone already in the program. The board needs to keep its commitment to those of us who have already invested in renewables - and make sure that wording is crystal clear.

Vermont also needs to make investing in renewables a priority in this state and show that as Vermonters we know what is at stake by continuing to ignore the damage done to our environment by continuing our use of polluting power sources.

I was appalled to read that the Board was even considering a grid service fee. Seriously! That is absurd! I send excess, clean power back to my power provider and you were actually considering charging me a fee to do so! Totally counterproductive and ludicrous.

I always thought the Public Service Board was an entity that was designed to protect and serve the rights and best interests of the public. How could net metering be anything but positive for everyone! The Public Service Board should be finding ways to promote and expand the program, not make it more difficult or more expensive! YOU NEED TO SUPPORT NET METERING!!!

Wake up PBS! If we don't all take global warming seriously and all do our part to clean up the damage we as a society have done, we and all future generations are all going to pay the consequences.

Sincerely

Linda Callan Saint Albans

To the Public Service Board-

As a member of the Vermont Electric Coop who invested in a solar electric and hot water system three years ago, I’d like to join the chorus of voices asking for a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thanks for your consideration

Harry Frank Huntington,

Please do not create a rule that will penalize net metering customers who retire their RECs in Vermont. The rule should reward them. It should also reward Vermonters who invest in a group array in order to participate in clean energy projects.

David Schoales Brattleboro

Please ensure that VEC members get a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced, and does not just favor large developers. We support VEC's choices and guidance on this. They are a good company.

Thank You., Kaye Alexander Edward Lalonde Westford

I am a member of Vermont Electric Coop (VEC) and want to express my concern for a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced for all Vermonters. Two elements of a sustainable and fairly priced net metering program include contributions by everyone who uses the grid and pricing that reflects true market realities \/prices. Thank you for your time.

Anthony S Vargo, CPA Richmond

We want to go on record as being opposed to any change in the rules regarding Solar installations that would:

1. Change the terms under which current net metering installations were installed. It would be totally unfair to rule that the rate we currently pay, which was based on an understanding that the monthly amount would not change for the life of the loan (30 years), could now be increased at the whim of the electric company and the PSB.

2. Make it more difficult to obtain approval for the future installation or expansion of solar installations (although we do believe that the rules for such approvals should be consistent throughout the state).

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Robert and Beverly McMullin North Fayston

Dear Ms. Whitney:

I am writing in support of Vermont Electric Cooperative’s comments on the draft of Rule 5.100, on allowing the option of a Grid Service Fee.

I have a net-metering system on my home and am a member of VEC. Establishing a grid service fee is a matter of fairness, transparency and accountability.

As an early adopter of solar, I enjoy an advantage others do not, as VEC has reached its cap. It is not hard to see that non-net-metered customers must unfairly bear the costs of grid maintenance, which in our part of the state can be substantial. It is important that the rules governing renewable energy also be fair for electric companies.

Investment in our electrical infrastructure will increase greatly over the coming years and decades to enable use of new technologies and secure our grid against the expected increase in extreme weather events. All Vermonters should be able to see how those investments are handled and how they are reflected in our electricity charges as well as have a say in how those investments are made.

Our goal should be solar installations on every rooftop in Vermont. The widespread adoption of solar is hampered by the current system. Allowing a grid service fee option would make the system more equitable for all concerned and enable expansion of solar in Vermont.

Sincerely, Stephen Haenel Underhill

I am in support of freedom of choice of electricity providers per person. In lieu of that I am in favor of a net metering program if it enables VEC to provide its members ie customers with consistent, constant and affordable power to operate and heat our homes.

Thank you.

Tacona Chaffee

I’m writing to share my concerns about net metering. I’m a Vermont Electric Co-op custom and appreciate that we are able to purchase renewal energy locally. I’m willing to pay a slightly higher rate for renewal energy. I do believe that net metered system need to share the cost of maintain the local and regional electric grid. Net metering allows on-grid producers the ability to sell power they produce without needing to store in batteries. They are only able to do this because the grid already exists yet it needs to be maintained. Please consider a fee to make sure net metered systems are also contributing to the grid.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thanks

Mike Farmer Fletcher, VT

As a VEC member, I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Small homeowners as well as large developers need to be incorporated into a coherent plan. All who use the grid need to pay for its use & upkeep, and costs and values need to be determined by current market value.

Thank you for considering my input.

Laurel Todd Beecher Falls, VT

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to the Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share.

Thank you, Abe Weintraub

Vermont Public Service Board

I want to let you know that I am in favor of the PSB continuing to allow Vermonters to transition to clean energy sources and continue to build upon the success of net metering throughout the state.

Please, as you continue to review the program, I ask that you continue to keep grid service fees out of the net metering rules and include stronger language that clearly shows support for Vermonters that have already gone renewable ("grandfathering").

Respectfully,

Kevin Favreau St. Albans

To whom it may concern, I understand that there is a public comment period in place for the new proposed 5.100 net metering rules and wanted to take a minute to submit my thoughts. I am an electrical engineer that works for a

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont electrical utility and believe that energy flexibility and sustainability is a goal that we all believe in as long as it is financially sound and secure. The facts are simple. Solar and wind have low capacity factors (16 and 32% respectively), and can’t be relied upon to meet the needs of the distribution systems loads without significant capital investment (reconductoring, voltage regulators, battery storage, demand side management, etc.). In general Net Meter generation is not a problem to system reliability but group net meters and larger facilities (500 kW and above) are. Net-Meters reduce load and therefore reduce the need to add larger conductor. Group Net-Meters feed the load from a different location than the system was built to serve the load and therefore wires need to be added or increased in size in order to serve the load from these new locations on the distribution circuit. Not to mention the existing distribution system is passive, making it active will add to the cost and complexity of the system offsetting any savings. If we as a state, country, and world have a concern with a changing climate then we need to address this problem with smart cost effective solutions. Our current strategy has drastically decreased the use of coal and nuclear but drastically increased the use of natural gas. Our states energy usage on Vermont’s peak day last year was 70% natural gas, 20 % hydro, 5 % wind, and 5 % coal. This usage is critical to defining the utilities transmission costs for the rest of the year (ultimately this cost is passed onto the ratepayer). Not to mention that the cost to the customer is increasing drastically, the people paying for solar are the ones who do not have the fiscal option to put it on their homes. Even people with solar arrays and battery storage will still need to use the grid at some point, Vermont does not have the solar irradiance that the southwest has. In my opinion everyone should pay to use the grid unless they are completely off-grid, otherwise others are forced to burden the cost .

There are many cost effective solutions to addressing our energy needs, many of which will not require reconfiguring our existing (fully-functional) grid infrastructure. One of which is getting more hydro from our Canadian neighbors at Hydro Quebec. Hydro Quebec has significant capacity to feed all of Vermont from renewable hydro with little to no impact on Vermont ratepayers. While the CEP has many good concepts (energy efficiency, Tier 3 promotion and integration) I think it’s worth considering alternatives that we can achieve today.

Sincerely,

Cyril Brunner

Dear PSB:

I applaud the efforts in the new rules to encourage building solar arrays built in the already heavily altered locations of brownfields and parking lots. The need to utilize our built landscape ofr energy production is imperative. Humans have apporpriated a huge amount of the landscape and theprimary produciton (read photosynthetically fixed carbon) and we need to more intensively use the built environment rather than continue to spread into the land we utilize for food production, fiber production, scenery, recreation and ecosystem services that support and regulate life processes. Point One -- I advocate strengthening the incentives to build arrays in the already built environment. Point Two -- Community-sized solar arrays are imperative for those of us who do not have suitable solar electric sites on our own lands, as is the case for my 2 acres. Further, life cycle analyses indicate that community-sized arrays are somewhat better in LCA measurements than the many many smaller

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 household sized arrays, especially if those smaller arrays are not roof-mounted (think, materials, truck trips to many locations to put in 12-24 panels, etc.). Therefore, I advocate for a rate design that encourages more community-sized arrays. I repeat, I advocate for a rate design that encourages more community-sized arrays.

Thank you for considering and adopting my suggestions. Sincerely, Marc Lapin, Cornwall, VT

Dear Public Service Board,

Going solar is a great opportunity to keep fossil fuel in the group and use the power of the sun. Taking the step for net metering is confusing with obstacles.

Please keep the grid service fee out of the final rule. Also please address the incentives necessary to get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. The Fairlee Select Board would have been a lot more receptive to building on our landfill with more incentives.

Thanks, Barbara Duncan Fairlee

Everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid. The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee.

Thanks for your consideration of fairness.

Robert E. Johnstone, MD Derby, Vermont

Dear Public Service Board,

Vermont needs renewable power, but at appropriate, market-based pricing, with full transparency for subsidized renewable sources and with payments for grid usage incorporated. The most efficient sources need to be given incentives without excessively burdening ratepayers.

I am a member of VEC at my home and so include their arguments:

The net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electric grid that can support increased renewable generation, since our ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 this energy because the private sector developers are not required to open their books to the public. We do know that renewable energy from the Standard Offer program is purchased for 13 cents per kilowatt- hour, but we are currently required to pay 19 or 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for net metered energy, which usually does not even include the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), meaning that it cannot legally be considered renewable energy. We are not convinced that the above-market rate is justifiable or sustainable, especially since the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small- scale net metering.

Thank you, Chris Bailey Huntington

Dear PSB Clerk,

I'm chiming in on the new net metering rules: I quote my concerns below.

The grandfathering provision. As written, it remains unclear how the new program would treat systems Vermonters have invested in under today’s rules. The Board rewrote the section in an attempt to ensure that current customers are “grandfathered in” and not adversely affected by any changes. Unfortunately, the language is still ambiguous. The Board should be crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people who have already gone renewable, and isn’t changing the rules they’re operating under.

The rate design. The current credit levels in the proposal will make it harder to build group solar arrays, limiting options for the majority of Vermonters who don’t have a suitable roof or yard to develop a project on their own property – or who rent. The PSB should reconsider the proposed rates and make sure the new program continues to provide a clear path for these customers and the group solar arrays they have available to them.

A financial penalty for retaining the environmental attributes of a project (the Renewable Energy Certificates or RECs). The new rule shouldn’t penalize – and, instead, should find a reasonable way to reward – net metering customers who retire their RECs in Vermont. These customers provide a real benefit to Vermont and the rule should more fairly reflect that.

Thanks very much,

Abijah Reed Putney

To: PSB Clerk

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

From: G Gates, VEC member, Franklin

I want the Board to know that as a Vermont electric rate payer that I am concerned that we may be taken advantage of by big business interests at the hands of rate payers. Please take into account the affect upon your constituents costs and the benefits they receive over the hype of "green energy and carbon credits(that developers are taking advantage of at our expense)". We neeed a fair net metering program that we can all feel good about.

My son was just mentioning that 95 thousand solar panels by outside developers in the near future would take up much "green space" where vegetation can fight carbon or that can be used for better uses for the benefit of the state and its residents. How much carbon is expended in manufacture, transportation, and construction of these so called Green energy sources? Why not require them to put them only on buildings at their expence instead of taking up our precious environmental resource?

Please relay my concerns to the PSB.

Sincerely, Gerald

As a member of VEC, I would like to let you know that we want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Jeffrey & Sybil Jewell of Fletcher, VT

Pete Benevento here from Franklin, VT. It has come to my attention that the current net metering program will place an unfair financial burden on VEC members. We cannot have unlimited amounts of net metering at the current inflated rates. VEC members want a net metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. Thank you.

Pete Benevento Franklin, VT 05457

Dear Public Service Board

We received an email message from Vermont Electric Co-op this week & we would like to address some of the points VEC makes.

We are in the process of having a solar array installed at our house. We made the decision to go with renewable energy for two reasons; 1. We want to reduce our overall power costs 2. We want to make a positive impact on the environment Converting to renewable energy, in our case solar, achieves both these goals.

To address some of the points highlighted in the VEC email;

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

We … are currently required to pay 19 or 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for net metered energy … We are not convinced that the above-market rate is justifiable or sustainable … This is a $40K investment for us. In addition, any & all upkeep, maintenance, and repair costs will be ours. Assuming our current rate of power usage doesn’t change significantly we are looking at a 12 to 13 year payback.

VEC is asking to be allowed to reduce the cost they pay homeowners for solar power as well as adding “grid service” fees. Obviously this will have a significant impact on the payback period for the solar installation. In the email VEC states “We must support renewable energy …” yet their proposals will do the very opposite. Installing solar power was a huge decision for us. We had to weigh the benefits – environmental & financial – against the risk of tying up our money for such a long period. Reducing the $/KW-hr rate paid and adding these ‘grid service’ fees will affect us personally, as well as resulting in fewer & fewer homeowners being willing or able to make the same commitment.

Current policy has led to more than half of our net metering capacity to be taken up by developer driven, large-scale projects, rather than household rooftop net metering. This is raised again later in the email … especially since the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small-scale net metering.

If this is the case then perhaps there could or should be some differentiation between large scale projects and single home systems. These are two very different situations and should not necessarily be treated the same.

People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy …. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share. Nobody likes people who ‘don’t pay their fair share’. That is an emotional argument. What we need to keep in mind is that there are two separate transactions happening here and we need to keep them separate.

As participants in the net metering program we will continue to be purchasing power from VEC. This transaction will be no different than what we are doing today.

The second transaction is the new one, in which we will be generating power & selling to VEC. This is a straight up seller – buyer transaction. The question that needs to be resolved is the price being paid for the power generated. This needs to be a stable, fixed price based on $/KW-hr. One item that VEC neglected to add in their ‘fair share’ argument is that if we generate more power than we consume there is no additional compensation to us for that excess. I believe that if VEC wants to open the issue on a ‘fair share’ basis then this needs to be on the table as well.

The Co-op should not be required to overpay for net-metered energy, especially when we do not know if the price adequately reflects the cost of developing this energy … Again, this seems to be directed toward the larger scale projects. We know and are happy to share our cost for ‘developing this energy’. For us the cost is $40K which will take us 12+ years to pay off

We cannot have an unlimited amount of net metering at these inflated rates without causing financial harm to members.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

This is no doubt true, however our understanding is that there is, in fact, a limit on the number of net metering opportunities available.

We believe that if the State of Vermont wishes to encourage renewable power generation at the homeowner level then the items being requested by VEC need to be rejected.

Thank you & kindest regards,

Thom & Brenda Smith Fairfax

To Whom it May Concern:

I'd like to address a few topics related to solar and ask that you respectfully take my viewpoint into consideration. I've been a CSA member for over a year now.

A) Grid service fees. The topic of additional fees levied uniquely on solar customers has come up in several different policy discussions. Certain utilities are pushing hard to have this ability. While there's no allowance for these fees in the current draft, we know the Board is strongly considering adding them. To be clear, this would be a solar-specific fee, on top of the fees already on a customer's bill. There are three problems with this proposal:

1) Making solar more expensive is bad policy. Everyday Vermonters are committing resources to build solar in our state; the last thing we should do is allow utilities to slap a penalty on that. Or add significant costs such that we revert to a time when only the wealthy could afford solar. I'm a teacher, and added costs to an already tight fiscal decision for my family would have steered me in the direction of no.

2) Singling out a specific group of customers for additional charges is unfair. All residential customers - solar or not - have fixed monthly fees on their bills. There are no other classes or groups with the pool of residential customers, no other differentiated charges. The idea of adding additional fixed cost to some, without logic, should be flatly dismissed.

3) Solar financing is a long-term commitment and needs certainty and predictability. Imagine if Solar Companies walked me through the cost and savings of my solar, and then added - "your utility is allowed to add solar fees to your bill, so be aware that this could happen down the road." As a solar customer, that uncertainty would significantly handicap solar development.

B) The value of solar power. Our community solar program is predicated, in part, on the fair market value ascribed to solar. The current draft rule includes a significant drop (20-50% down, depending on the project details) on the value of solar generated by community solar projects (built in 2017 and beyond). While this wouldn't have an impact on me and the other 800-odd CSA members already part of built arrays, it puts in jeopardy the program beyond this year.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

To end, please understand that Community Solar was the right solar option for me. I encourage you to increase the prescribed solar rates for community or shared solar projects. Community Solar needs to remain viable because so many are in my shoes and going solar at their home doesn't make sense. We need to help the Board see this; as a CSA member, I can offer example.

Ben Krahn English Teacher Middlebury High School

I am the sole managing member of a small solar company, Mont Vert LLC. I set this company up to establish a 66 kilowatt community solar array for my neighbors in South Burlington and Proctor, Vermont. This array is now operational and providing clean renewable electricity to Vermont's electrical grid, and energy savings to my 13 "neighbor customers". I do not sell the RECs to anyone, because I want to assure my neighbors that their electricity is indeed "clean". My neighbors and I are happy to know we are doing our part of support Vermont's renewable energy goals, and to fight against climate change.

As part of my Master's Thesis at the University of Vermont I did a detailed rate of return analysis for this solar array, supervised by three of the best ecological economists in the State. Over 25 years it will generate a 21% rate of return, which is less than 1% per year. That is, I will barely break even. But in my mind it's worth doing, once the environmental benefits of the array are taking into account.

I would like to do another such community array. Other neighbors want to participate. But the current proposed changes in the net metering rates and regulations make another such community solar array impossible. The economics just don't work.

I believe the proposed changes infringe on my ability, and that of my neighbors, to choose our energy future and support the State's energy goals through affordable community renewable solar projects.

I would ask the Public Service Board to revise this draft net metering rule and set fair rates that would make additional community solar arrays like mine possible.

Thank you,

Sam Carlson South Burlington

Hello,

I am a Vermont Electric Coop member, and I wanted to make my opinion known about the net-metering program. I currently live on the grid and use the grid for my household power. Since I was a child I have dreamed of having cleaner energy sources at my home. Right now is not the financially correct time for me to purchase solar panels for my house and take part in the net-metering program, but I am trying to save to achieve this goal in the near future. In order to ensure that future, I am asking you to create a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced for all parties, and where all contributors and users of the grid pay to maintain the grid.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you, Melanie Masi

Vermont Public Service Board

I have invested in residential solar, my decision to do so was based on a long term return along with benefits to our environment. I urge you to grandfather in existing solar customers who have already made a commitment to it. I also urge you to continue to keep grid services fees out of the final ruling.

Sincerely,

Charles Voigt Moretown

As a Vermont Electric Co-op member, I want a net-metering program that is sustainable and also fairly priced.

Gerald Goupee

Public Service Board VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

We must support renewable energy, and if we want the net metering program to work towards this goal in a cost-effective manner, we must expect rigor, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in the rate- setting process. We should not pay more than we need to pay.

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The cost to the Co-op to provide this service for the net-metered member is the same as for a non-net metered member. Maintaining the grid for all Co-op members requires significant cost and all users should contribute their fair share.

Please support VEC members (I am one) when you begin the process of creating the net metering rules that will start in 2017.

Thank you, Lucille Smith

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I understand there is consideration to levy additional fees on electric customers generating solar power. This would seem an unwise decision in light of Vermont’s drive to the increasing use of renewal energy. Additional fees targeted solely at customers generating solar electricity is not only unfair but also discourages additional people going solar. I also understand that electricity providers benefit from distributed solar power generation in that solar generates the most power in the summer which is also the time of greatest usage. By having their customers generate their power, the utility does not have to buy electricity on the spot market at higher rates when there is high demand in the summer months.

John Owen South Burlington

As a proud owner of a solar tracker, I wanted to submit some comments about the proposed rule regarding net metering. I have had a solar tracker on my property since 2010 when they were first being offered in as a lease option. I have since purchased my tracker outright in 2015. I have only good things to say about this experience. It has been wonderful to know that my energy use is coming from the sun, and I have since changed appliances in my house to be able to use more electric energy rather than propane. People over the years have stopped and asked me about the tracker and I tell them to contact All Earth Renewables and they would be happy to talk to them about potential options. Please consider the future use of renewables in your decision making. This affects everyone, and the more we can encourage smart, small scale renewable sources in Vermont the better for everyone and the planet. Please don't make it more difficult for people to explore this option or to penalize existing owners or leasees of solar power. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Sarah Lincoln N. Ferrisburgh, VT 05473

Vermont Public Service Board

I would like to support and add my voice to the opinion of VPIRG, to ensure that the final Net Metering Rule makes it easy for Vermonters to access clean, renewable energy at a fair price. Specifically:

The revised rule does not include a grid service fee. This would be a new monthly fee for the right to go renewable that would drive up the cost of net metering, and drive down participation. The Board should keep the grid service fee out of the final rule.

The proposed rates will make it harder to build group solar arrays, limiting options for Vermonters who don't have a suitable roof themselves. Furthermore the rule does not provide additional incentives necessary to actually get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. The Board should address this.

Sincerely,

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Bruce Saffran Mooretown

To: PSB

VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

The net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electric grid that can support increased renewable generation, since our ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid.

The maintenance of the grid must be equally supported by all users of the grid.

Peter McCormick, VEC member

Proposed Rule 5.100

To the Vermont Public Service Board:

Using less fossil fuels and going green are very important for Vermont. As a state we have goals for using more and more renewable energy as the years pass. Solar energy is wonderful where an overflow is a sunny day! To help encourage solar energy use, please build upon the success of net metering: 1) by keeping the grid service fee out of the final rule, 2) by being clear that people who have already gone renewable won't have the rules changed on them, 3) by making it easy for people to participate in group solar arrays, and 4) by providing additional incentives necessary to get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots.

This is very important. We need to make the path to adopting renewable energy as easy as pie!!! Vermont, after all, is the GREEN Mountain State!!!!!!!

Sincerely, Sara Neller Rutland

Ladies and gentlemen,

I find the part of net metering rules requiring utilities to offset, with electricity produced, only such electricity as has been metered short sighted.

As you know, power consumed by street lighting is not metered. Rather, it is paid for under per light tariffs that take account of estimates of power consumption during dusk and dark hours of each month.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Street lights constitute a major portion of electricity consumed Vermont. Almost every village, town and city has street lights. A not insignificant portion of municipal tax revenue goes towards this use of electricity.

I submit that since utilities can estimate power consumed per light, they can estimate a reasonable amount to be offset under a net metering scheme. Moreover, such estimates are verifiable. Although it is not practical to meter each lamp, it is more than practical to meter, including remotely, a small sample of of lamps in a municipality, say 1, or 1%.

Anticipating a possible objection, that produced power would be intermittent, or unavailable in overnight hours, rendering the proposed offset unworkable, consider that power storage technology is immature but advancing monthly. While storage is not widely deployed at this time, it is reasonable to expect bursts of deployment such as we have seen with solar electric panels and wind. Moreover, objections based on intermittent or over night availability and are not applicable to power from fuel cells and various methane abatement technologies.

Therefore, I submit that offset of non-metered power be included in the proposed rule in principle, pending resolution of operational details of each proposed offset. To reach Vermont's demanding energy goals, we must be prepared to seize all reasonable opportunities, not leaving significant aggregate power consumption, such as this example, unaddressed.

Very truly yours, Timothy O'Dell Energy Coordinator, Town of Corinth

I'm writing to express my concern regarding suggestions that fees be charged to participants of solar arrays. I do believe that solar generation should be a sustainable endeavor and fully agree with a realistic level of credits for electricity generated.

As to having an additional fee levied because I participate in solar generation of electricity seems designed to discourage the use of community solar arrays. At the time that I decided to participate in solar generation of electricity, I was unable to have panels located on my property, hence the decision to participate in a community solar array. I based my level of participation on my current electric bill at that time. In my reasoning, to apply an additional fee, raising my rates simply because I chose to generate electricity is in effect treating me as if I were a commercial entity generating a profit by selling the power generated to the local utilities.

Given that I'm committed to a long term investment in generation of electricity, contributing to Vermont's sustainability goals, I feel that targeting array participants in this manner is both short sighted and counter productive.

I hope that the Public Service Board will be able to navigate an agreement that is both realistic and sustainable when it come to energy generation in Vermont.

Thank you Henry Fiacco South Burlington

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As an owner of two solar arrays and current net metering customer of GMP, I recommend the following changes be made to the proposed net metering rule:

1. Set fair rates for projects that support the State’s comprehensive renewable energy goals. Customers should have access to more affordable community renewable projects. Eliminating the negative REC penalty would encourage Vermonters to generate and purchase renewable energy. “Adjuster” rates should be certain for at least 15 years. 2. Allow customers to use their self-generated renewable energy over an 18 month time period to account for seasonal weather and home use shifts, transition periods before installation of efficient heat pumps, or utilization of electric vehicles, etc. 3. Prohibit monopoly utilities from targeting renewable net-metered customers with new fees or other costly mandates (such as 3rd party audits) before choosing renewable energy. As a customer with self-generated renewable energy, I am particularly interested in extending the time period (#2 above) from 12 months to 18 months. At 12 months, I can see that the yearly fluctuations are not appropriately mitigated and more time is needed for the seasonal weather and home use shifts.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Colin Rehkugler Charlotte, VT

Good Morning Please consider keeping the net metering program. It is a way for Vermont to be energy independent, along with being able to heat with wood. All these are renewable for us, and the Sun is critical for the net metering program. Trees are critical for heat.

Best regards Alan Palmer 6th Generation Vermonter

I am writing in support of REV's proposed changes to the new Net Metering rules. If Vermont is going to meet it's renewable energy goals--which it must do--these new rules must not go into effect. thank you. Judy Geer Morrisville

Good morning,

I recently heard about a meeting taking place tonight in Montpelier with regard to public comment on fees being charged to solar customers. I live in southwestern Vermont and unfortunately I will not be able to make the trip to Montpelier. I would like to publicly state that I think this is a bad idea. The

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 state of VT is (possibly was) a leader in clean solar usage because of the policies created by the public service board in the past. Please don’t allow this progress to regress.

My family made the decision to go solar and the decision is one that I do not regret. We are all saving on our dependence of electricity from other places. Electricity made with oil, coal, and natural gas. We did not make the decision to go solar because it would save me money, it was more just it is the right thing to do. With that said, if I had known about the possibility of charges like this (or if they were in place at the time of the installation), I am not sure I would have made that decision. I assumed that the monthly fee that I STILL PAY was for grid maintenance. Issuing a separate fee because I am a solar producer is completely unfair. Words used to describe similar things to this are collusion or discrimination. Not words I typically would associate with power companies and public service boards.

I am not a fan of the large scale solar fields we are seeing around the state. I am a huge fan of solar on rooftops and the power a homeowner has to make the decision to get their power from clean / renewable sources. I would hate to see the power companies create a series of fees that would make it so more home owners can’t do what we were able to do. It is interesting, when oil and gas was high, none of this was an issue. The power solar producers were making were feeding the grid at a cost less than what they were paying for power from natural gas and coal. Now that the prices have gone down, they are trying to generate revenue and are doing so by gouging the people who are trying to do the right thing. What happens when the commodities rise and the power companies once again view solar power as a bargain. They still get our fees and cheap clean power.

I heard one state representative on VPR state that they were in favor of these charges because solar customers have more disposable income and they can afford to pay these fees. That is ludicrous! My wife and I have a 12 year loan for these panels. We are currently paying more than our electric bill would have been had we not put the panels on. That said, the charges will go away in 12 years, but we have to get there…and cash flow is what it is.

Please take the McEnaney Family and other families like us into consideration as you debate this topic.

Sincerely, Scott McEnaney Manager of Schools and Endorsed Services The Orvis Company, Inc. Sunderland

Hello, I am a member of VEC and a proponent of renewable energy. I also support residential net metering. It is the way to expand net metering and make renewable energy a part of our culture. As great as it is to see large scale commercial installations, I feel it's more important to make renewable energy available for home owners. Also, to make this all happen, the price VEC and other utilities pay for net metering power must be fair. We all depend on the infrastructure that the utility companies build and maintain. The utilities need to maintain proper funding to allow them to do so. Sincerely,

Chris Herman Milton, VT

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Please consider the information and opinions provided in the following editorial (and comments section) as the PSB makes decisions on Net Metering: http://vtdigger.org/2016/04/19/gerry-silverstein-is-net-metering-discriminatory/

I am especially concerned with the fact that net metering customers may make no contributions to grid upkeep, while low electricity users who accomplish the same objectives (decreased demands on grid and less purchase of electricity on the spot market) do pay for grid upkeep.

Thank you

Gerry Silverstein South Burlington,Vermont

To the Public Service Board:

As a Vermont homeowner and resident with solar panels, I write to urge the PSB to NOT cut the rates of reimbursement for solar generation. We own a modest home of 1500 sq ft in a Williston hollow. We have 6 solar panels that generate about 200-300 Kwh during the peak of summer, saving my family about $30/month. In winter we generate basically nothing. Our electricity bills are still always between about $50-150/month, depending on the season.

We purchased our home last year, and the solar panels were already on the roof. They were a major selling point, and the reduced electricity bills factored into our calculus for purchasing the home at a given price. Now, the PSB is considering reducing that rate of reimbursement. This is unfair as it results in unexpected costs for my family. In effect, a lower rate would pull the rug out from under us.

We have also considered putting more solar panels on the house. If the rate is further reduced we will not do so because it would not be economically worthwhile.

Finally, the negative impact of reducing solar reimbursement rates cannot be underestimated. People will not invest in solar panels for their homes if they are not worth it monetarily. Vermont has a policy to increase renewable power, and reducing reimbursement rates below the current generation rate contravenes that goal.

If power companies must be compensated by private solar generators for maintenance to the grid, my suggestion would be to permit a flat solar generation fee on any home or business that actually receives a net credit from the power company in a given month. So, if the structure had a negative bill, greater than the cost of the fee, the fee would be deducted from the credit. This would protect the majority of property owners who produce or could produce some power, but still pay electric bills to some extent.

Another suggestion would be to change the rates only for those properties that have negative bills due to their great amount of production. Again, this would treat people in different circumstances differently, as should be the case.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your consideration of my comment. I hope you will heed its advice. Please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions at 201-694-4105

Sincerely,

Jay Diaz Williston, VT 05495

I believe that some of the parts of the new net metering proposals do not aid in encouraging ordinary citizens like myself to invest in solar. I put solar on my roof last summer. I do get credits for my electric bill. I am not wealthy at all. I am the Library Director in Hardwick. I live on my salary. My investment in solar was for several reasons. I am on the Craftsbury Energy Committee and have long worked for our society to become more sustainable.

Also, investing in solar helps me use renewable energy on a day-to-day basis.

I am paying for the infrastructure for this solar as do all private owners.

So, I give some renewable capacity outside of my own usage to the grid. If every person who had a suitable roof in Vermont put solar on the roof, that would be a lot of solar and all built by private funds. Hardwick Electric did not pay for my infrastructure, I did.

The net metering rules right now encourage private citizens to do this.

However, so many of the projects in the last two years after the net metering cap was lifted, was used by large projects. I do think that individual projects should have more incentive than large projects. I also realize that the electric companies and the solar producers are going to have to work out a pricing scheme that makes sure that the electric companies can continue to maintain the grid, the billing, the lines. Yet, this has to be a delicate balance so that while the electric companies make enough money to employ their workers and maintain the system, that the people willing to invest in solar are encouraged to build solar arrays.

Perhaps, it would be better if all electric companies were cooperatives and nonprofit entities so that the need for continuing profit and the growth of that profit is no longer a factor. That, instead, we start having energy produced for people's needs and for the benefit of the environment and the long term health of the planet.

Lisa Sammet Craftsbury

I am very worried about the proposed changes to the net metering law in Vermont. As a net metering customer for over 6 years, these changes could drastically harm Vermont’s transition to renewable energy, which is essential to combat catastrophic climate change.

I suggest the following changes are needed to the latest draft rule:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

• Set fair rates for projects that support the State’s comprehensive renewable energy goals. Customers should have access to more affordable community renewable projects. Eliminating the negative REC penalty would encourage Vermonters to generate and purchase renewable energy. “Adjuster” rates should be certain for at least 15 years. • Allow customers to use their self-generated renewable energy over an 18 month time period to account for seasonal weather and home use shifts, transition periods before installation of efficient heat pumps, or utilization of electric vehicles, etc. • Encourage well-sited projects by reducing their permitting and hearing burdens. • Prohibit monopoly utilities from targeting renewable net-metered customers with new fees or other costly mandates (such as 3rd party audits) before choosing renewable energy.

Please listen to Vermonters. Please listen to people like me who are helping to solve the climate crisis. It would be much better if you did everything possible to incentivize renewable energy and discourage the use of fossil fuels. Perhaps you could raise taxes on fossil fuels to help subsidize renewable energy — This would be much better then harming the expansion of renewable energy in Vermont.

Thanks you for reading my comments. John Fedor-Cunningham Orwell, VT

To Whom It May Concern:

We strongly support the recommendations of our electric cooperative, Vermont Electric, regarding the above bill. It is not appropriate that homeowners and businesses that install RE projects through the netmetering program are relieved from the responsibility of building and maintaining the lines that their electricity is delivered into. This only increases the financial burden of other ratepayers and users who do not have RE projects but instead rely on efficiency improvements to reduce our monthly bills.

Matthew & Rhonda Shippee Morgan, VT

I'm a strong advocate of renewable energy, but I feel just as strong about fair net metering. If the people with solar panels or win generators aren't charged for the distribution of electrical power that means that I'm being forced to subsidize them.

This is neither fair nor equitable to the majority of electricity users in Vermont.

Please work out a fair and equitable solution.

Doug Stuart Cambridge, VT

May 4, 2016

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont Public Service Board

Please keep the grandfather section in the new rules. It would be unfair for those of us who have already made the commitment to go solar to change the rules on us. Vermont should stay strong in its commitment to renewables and not make it harder for that to happen. Sincerely, Rebecca Auger

Sincerely,

Rebecca Auger Moretown, VT 05660-9098

Hello,

I am a member of Vermont Electric Coop. I am writing after reading the Coop's position on issues affected by this proposed rule.

I am not a fan of single home net metering. It has been important in building momentum for cheaper solar panels, but it strikes me as status symbols for wealthy "greenies". I should add that I own and live in a passive solar house. Now that solar electric is affordable commercially the subsidies should be eliminated on future single home installations.

What makes sense is community solar where everyone can participate and the solar farm will be professionally maintained throughout its life. Much cheaper per installed panel, (we need to include repairs and maintenance in the calculation), which means more carbon savings per dollar spent.

Electric Grid The other point is the issue of paying for the electric grid. As an electrical engineer, the arguments present by the Coop for a fee for using the grid make perfect sense to me. As I know from owning a passive solar home, solar is a very hit or miss thing in Vermont. Everyone who wants reliable electricity for standard appliances will be drawing power from the grid much of the time, especially in winter. All of us need to pay for the grid. Especially as renewable energy forms a larger part of our power mix.

Rate compensation I do not know how such things are calculated but the Coop and GMP have proposed developing utility scale solar without needing state subsidies. Going forward, why would we pay subsidies over market rate to special interests? Even if these special interests claim they are "green".

State of Vermont has been in a mode of massive support for solar electric to get it started. Fine. But it has now arrived and we need to move to a cost based system that is fair to everyone. Thanks, Richard Andresen Hinesburg VT

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Members of the Public Service Board, I am writing in regards to Proposed Rule 5.100 (over net metering rules). I know that the legislature passed a bill last spring, H40, which sets renewable energy goals for the state. Those goals include the requirement that 55% of our power come from renewables by 2017 and then 75% by 2032. This is important as we have a moral obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to leave a livable planet for future generations. It is important that the policies of the state encourage the development of renewables, including projects by homeowners as well as utilities and cooperatives.

I urge you to continue a strong net metering program in order to support the development of affordable, clean energy. Keep out a grid service fee that would drive up the cost of net metering and drive down participation. Please be sure that the clause regarding grandfathering is clear and ensures that there will be no sudden changes for those people who have already gone renewable. It is important that you do not make it more difficult to build group solar arrays. In Northfield we have a group that is working on a community solar project that would provide renters and others without access to land and monetary resources the opportunity receive their energy from solar. It is also important the you reward net metering customers that retire their Renewable Energy Certificates in Vermont.

Sincerely, Carol L. Noyes, Northfield, VT

Hello, I support the provisions in proposed rule 5.100. As a net-metered customer of GMP, I pay the daily connection fee and receive the 6-cent incentive. I believe the missing piece is battery storage controlled by the utility so that my generated electricity can be used at optimal times more flexibly.

On my local Front Porch Forum there was a misunderstanding that other rate payers are subsidizing distributed generation such as from my solar installation. I don't believe that is true when you consider the reduced transmission line infrastructure needed, the high cost of purchased power at peak demand times for air conditioning on sunny summer days, and the reduced line losses of distributed generation. Add to that the possible sale of RECs and I believe the utilities are coming out even or better.

Regardless, encouraging solar generation is part of the process of meeting the state's renewable energy goals and, when combined with local storage, solar will be a key component in our energy future.

Encouraging solar generation today sets the stage for our sustainable energy future. This goes for larger scale solar and wind as well and while I believe we need to be sensitive to siting concerns, the process should err on the side of encouraging renewable generation given the high human and economic cost of climate change as we mine and consume more and more fossil fuel with the resultant carbon in the atmosphere.

Thank you! --Chapin Kaynor Williston, VT 05495

As a VEC member, I strongly support a sustainable and fairly-priced net metering program, one that would include a grid service fee for every user and a rate of compensation that reflects market realities.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I feel the program as currently configured favors large, developer-driven projects to the detriment, even exclusion, of individual homeowners who would like to participate and that the renewable energy it provides often doesn't benefit Vermonters. Renewable enegy projects should be approved only for locations where that energy is needed and used and not for transmission or sale to distant places.

Margaret K. Brown

As a VEC member we support a sustainable and fairly priced net metering program.

Our net metering program needs to provide capacity for household rooftop net metering and NOT developer-driven RECs being sold to other states. Keep want's made in VT in VT.

Thank you.

Barbara and Robert Forauer Hinesburg, VT

Hello, While I did provide comments from my perspective from having spent nearly ten years in the solar industry with experience in six different northeast states, due to the three minute limit on comments during last night's public hearing on the proposed 5.100 rule, I was not able to voice a second thought regarding the proposal to allow Vermont's utilities to levy a grid service fee on the net metered solar customers within their service areas.

The president of Washington Electric Co-Op stated that without this new fee, their non solar customers would have to pay for grid maintenance while their solar customers would not. That argument is seriously flawed when one considers that by reducing peak demand, adding distributed generation through the installation of solar behind the meter has had and will continue to have a significant impact on reducing and/or eliminating costs for upgrading their electric distribution system. Those savings are realized and enjoyed by all of the utility's customers, yet all of the investment which provides those savings is bourn by those who install solar at their own homes and businesses.

I would ask the board to request from the utilities their estimates of the avoided costs for gird upgrades that have so far been eliminated due to the addition of distributed solar generation by their customers. Those savings are real, significant and directly attributable to those utility customers who have invested in net metered solar PV. Perhaps the utilities should consider acknowledging and thanking their interconnected solar customers rather than levying new, previously unforeseen and currently unjustified costs on them.

Thank you for the hard work you are doing to gain a clear understanding of these issues and how they will impact our beautiful state's commitment to changing from dirty imported energy sources to local renewable energy sources; it's very important work.

Tim Roper Chester, VT

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

To the PSB,

I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule. I invested in a 4 Kw system with Saxtons River Solar Electric in 2014, and feel really good about taking action to combat climate change. I would not have done this if the proposed drastically reduced net metering credits were in place. This rule, if enacted, would greatly curtail solar electricity production in Vermont.

Thank you, Peter Bergstrom Saxtons River, VT

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing to state our objections to the proposed new rulings (Rule 5.100) regarding solar electric installation, net metering, renewable energy credits (RECs), and grid fees scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2017. We object to these rulings because they: • who filed CPG applications prior to January 1, 2017. • metering customers who retain their Renewable Energy Credits (RECs); • Cs at market rates and only allow them to sell to utilities for 10 years or face a rate penalty; • schools, and small businesses, and folks who don’t own property or whose property isn’t suitable for renewables; • cost savings, and other benefits provided to utilities and ratepayers by customers who personally invest in renewables; and •

Please take note of these serious objections and keep the interests of environment-friendly Vermonters in mind. Do not allow these proposed rulings to pass.

Yours truly,

Rosalyn and Eshagh Shaoul Putney, VT 05346

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As a net metering customer, I would like to express my gratitude for the service that has been offered thus far. Though we have solar panels, we still pay for electricity from the grid. We want to stay connected to the grid, and keeping it affordable to do so is a significant help to my family. We are dedicated to being responsible energy users, and we appreciate being partners in the net metering program. Please, stay focused on building on the success of net metering.

Sincerely,

Danielle LaFleur Brooks Montpelier, VT 05602-2138

Dear Service Board,

I live in Waterbury Center and have two trackers.

It’s very important that I get the deal that I expected when I bought them.

It’s important that the policy serves the States’s renewables goal by promoting rooftop and other customer financed solar.

It’s important that there are incentives for residents to put out money for renewables, so the state doesn’t have to.

It’s important that we create a diverse array of energy sources

It’s also important that the arrangement is sustainable and is fair to the utility (GMP), but without impeding our moving forward with the above goals and without being unfair to the customers who put money out for these panels with certain assumptions about how the system would pay them.

Thanks for your careful consideration,

Peter D. Meyer Waterbury Center

Hello,

I am writing with a comment on Rule 5.100. I realize that the question of how best to regulate solar power is complicated. But I am wary of any new rules that might diminish the economic viability of solar power has a widespread energy source in Vermont. I believe that the rules should incentivize solar energy in the state, and this means not reducing the rate that they receive for the power they produce. It also means making sure that self-generated renewable energy should be counted over a long period of time, such as 18 months, because of the great seasonal variation here in Vermont. And, I can understand why utilities would be interested in charging extra fees to customers with net-metering. But if a utility can't survive without those fees, then I think we should move away from private utilities and public utilities that incentivize renewable energy.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Sincerely, William Edelglass Co-Editor of the journal Environmental Philosophy Professor of Philosophy and Environmental Studies Marlboro College Marlboro

I am very happy with my choice for solar green energy power. I feel like I've gotten into the 21st century with my decision. The system seems to be well run now and I am curious that the some Electric Co.'s feel a need to increase their $$ for solar clients. Is there a money issue or are they out for just making some more money off of a good idea? Vermont is unique and ahead of the other states with many issues that this issue of just making more $$ off of a good idea dose not seem like a true Vermont way. Lets just keep on doing a good thing people.....

Linda Kane, a happy solar person

I am opposed to rule 5.100. I feel the state should continue to encourage solar by whatever means possible. I am in the process of buying an electric car in order to lower my carbon footprint. Taking actions like this have no effect if our sources of power are not renewable energy. Burlington gets much of it's power from a wood powered plant. That's preferable to coal but still not as clean as solar. I hope Vermont can continue to work toward creating a planet that will be habitable for our children.

Sincerely, Anthony Fazzone, M.D. Burlington, VT

Dear Public Service Board-

I am writing to ask that you ensure the new net metering rules work for all Vermonters. We should not be forced to have to pay more than necessary for net metered energy. Everyone who uses the grid should pay for the cost of maintaining the grid, including those that net meter because they also use the grid every day. The final rules should include the ability for my utility to collect a grid service fee from net metering members. The new rules should also not require utilities to pay above market rates for net metered energy. No one can afford unnecessary increases in electric rates, especially those with low or fixed incomes. We expect and rely on the Public Service Board to develop rules that consider the needs of all Vermonters.

Thank you.

Regards,

Brian K. Scherer Newark

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I'm sure you are aware of this request from VEC and I just want to add my voice to these concerns. The good intent of projects so often gets diverted to reflect the greed of a few. I am just asking for fairness and affordability.

Your time and consideration is appreciated, Carmen Jackson Co-op member

To the Public Service Board -

I am a user-member of Vermont Electric Cooperative. My husband and I have secured capacity to install solar panels this year on our new home under construction in Craftsbury Common. I deeply support moving to a fully renewable energy future as quickly as possible in Vermont and across the U.S. and the world.

To do that, distributed renewable energy must become a sustainable part of our energy mix with rules that will work far into the future. This is not a jump start at this point. You as a public body are helping to gear up our new energy system for the long haul.

I strongly support the notion of a grid user fee. Net metering is extremely attractive because it makes use of the grid and net metering customers should be required to pay for that use. There are many questions to be answered in regards to this, including:

- To what degree is the user fee already wrapped into a utility's $/kwh? Costs for the grid and costs for purchasing energy should be completely separated out in a utility's books and charged separately on a utility bill.

- Should a user who produces net-positive kwhs be able to use their energy credit towards off-setting the fee?

I trust you will consider these issues carefully.

Also, to the degree that solar energy is able to compete on a level playing field with other electricity sources, that should be encouraged. Utilities will look more favorably on investing in order to be able to manage an increased percentage of renewables in their mix if they do not have to pay exorbitantly more for them. Alternatively, perhaps a producer can only charge the higher fee if a renewable certificate comes with it so that there is no double dipping in that regard.

Finally, if there continue to be limits on renewable capacity, there should be step-wise increases at regular intervals. Also, each utility in the state should be required to set aside a certain amount of the increase for non-commercial/residential customers. Too many utilities used up their entire capacity on large developer-driven projects. I am not against this type of project at all, but they should not occur at the expense of residential customers desires to install their own panels at home.

Thank you for considering my comments. Kristen Fountain

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear PSB:

As a long time environmental supporter, I believe strongly in well sited cost effective renewable energy, however, I believe that the net metering program must include a grid fee for those fortunate enough to participate in that program. In almost all cases they use the grid either in "off times" for their "facility" or when sending electricity back. As they use the grid, they should contribute to the cost of its maintenance. Without such support, a tremendous burden is placed on those without the ability to have their own net metering project. I, for example, live at the bottom of a steep valley with softwoods surrounding the property. As such, I have no viable access to reliable wind or solar production. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Mitch Wonson, Holland

We need to be encouraging development of renewables instead of placing obstacles in their way. Renewables are the future of Vermont.

Tom Finnell

As a residential consumer and member of the Vermont Electrical Coop, I’m writing to ask that the metering program being considered be sustainable and fairly priced. At this point under the current rules, I’m unable to participate in the net metering program, without which my desire to have solar electric is unaffordable. As a new homeowner I find this surprising and disappointing. The costs and benefits to all parties, providers, consumers, commercial and residential, need to be fully taken into account.

Thank you,

Charles McArthur Hinesburg

I am a member of the Vermont Electric Cooperative since 1979 and I support a sustainable and fairly priced net metering program that includes a grid service fee for all people who net meter and a price for power provided by net metering that is based on competitive market rates and does not require what amounts to a subsidy by ratepayers. As it stands, if everyone who has already applied to VEC for net metering installs their system, the Co-op will pay $1.5 million more annually than the value the energy provides to the Co-op and its members. This is unsustainable and unfair to the majority of members who are not net meterers. If we are going to take advantage of distributed renewable energy, as we should, and encourage as many as possible to become net producers of renewable energy, the terms of production must make economic sense. It is past time to change the rules to ensure that this is the case now and into the future.

Sincerely yours,

Shanna Ratner Fairfield, Vermont

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a member of the Vermont Electric Co-op. My address is 569 Belle Vista Rd., Jay, VT 05859. I write today to request that the Public Service Board create a net metering program where:

Everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid.

The net metering program should include an appropriate "grid service" fee. People who net meter are not "off the grid" but in fact use the grid 24 hours a day both to send and receive energy. The policy as drafted in this manner is based in fairness to all of us who pay to maintain the grid. If people want to live or operate truly "off the grid", they do not use the existing infrastructure and are fully responsible for maintaining their own electricity infrastructure. Anyone else using the grid should have to pay their share in maintaining the grid. Again, this is only fair to the rest of us to pay for maintenance and upkeep.

Pricing for net metering reflects market realities.

The net metering program needs to be in line with the value of renewable energy to us as Vermont Electric Co-Op members, and must also reflect how much it costs to develop this energy. The Co-op should not be required to overpay for net-metered energy, especially when we do not know if the price adequately reflects the cost of developing this energy because the private sector developers are not currently required to open their books to the public. Here is where the Public Service Board could draw a line in the sand: lobby the Vermont legislature to require the private sector developers to open their books to the public since the service they are providing is ultimately a public one. Finally, the current net metering policy has led to more than half of our recent net metering capacity being taken up by developer-driven, large-scale projects, not household, small-scale net metering. As I have reiterated here, there should be an element of fairness to net metering policy, and I as an energy consumer in Vermont expect rigor, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in the rate-setting process. I expect a policy that is fair to both large-scale projects and small homeowners like me. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Rebecca Briber

What follows is my comment to be filed on Proposed Rule 5.100.

As a Green Mountain Power customer who installed a 7.65 kWh photovoltaic generation system in 2014, I have three comments on the proposed rule change:

1. Section 5.103 (B) (1) (a) states: "Customers using such net-metering systems shall, for a period of 20 years from the date of the net-metering system’s commissioning, continue to take service pursuant to the terms of the electric company’s approved net-metering tariff on file with the Board on December 31, 2016.”

First:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I support this and believe the electric utilities, the PSB and the State of Vermont should support this because the financial terms of my installation were predicated on a moral, of not legal, promise of these parties concerning the effects on my installation on my electric bill. Changing how this rule applies to me, and others like me, will cause all future potential net metering customers to fear that no agreement they sign now will be worth the paper it is printed on. That will kill net metering and will have a detrimental effect on rate payers, tax payers, and the environment.

Second:

Further, paragraph (d) of the same section states: “Customers shall not be grandfathered if they use a net-metering system that underwent a major amendment after January 1, 2017.”

I would trust that a “major amendment” does not include changes in how a net metering customer can dispose of excess credits. But the definition of “major amendment” on Page 6 is not entirely clear on this and, in fact, may have a loophole concerning the discretion of the board.

Third:

At present my net metering system is generating more power than I can use. I am working with Green Mountain Power and the PSB to transfer some of the excess credit that I will otherwise use to my son and my church. The process is incredibly complex for something that is fundamentally simple. For example, I see no reason why a “group” needs to be formed. Neither do I see any reason why the PSB has to be involved in a matter so trivial. This is a waste of tax payer’s money. I should be allowed to simply tell Green Mountain Power to transfer $100 of credit from my bill to my son’s bill — or to anyone else’s bill. I’m talking about the difference between the current multi-person-hour process involving several utility employees and at least two PSB employees to what should be a single three-minute computer transaction entry by a single utility employee.

George Carvill

Dear Vermont Public Service Board:

As Vermonters who install solar for our homes and businesses, we believe that it is important to legally "go solar." We want to be able to claim we consume the solar energy that is generated from our solar panels. It will be financially prohibitive for Vermonters to retain and retire their RECs under the new rule. Citizens, businesses, and community organizations who go solar contribute additional renewable energy toward Vermont's 90% renewable energy goal and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

There is no sound policy reason to penalize us by reducing our net metering credit compared to a customer who turns their RECs over to the utility. Our decision to go solar has the same benefit to the climate and contributes equally toward Vermont's renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions goals. It is bad public policy to compensate a Vermonter who helps the state achieve its renewable and climate goals with the same credit as a customer who sells the RECs out of state for profit and does not contribute renewable energy for Vermont.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Sincerely,

Brian and Tara Sullivan Burlington

This rule has no place in Vt.

The Net Metering Program should read: “The net metering amount you can claim is limited to 50% of your electrical bill KWHs and at the same % of the rate you paid per KWH.” I.e. if you electrical bill is for 500 KWH you can only net meter 250KWH at the % of the rate that you paid for per KWA. The %s are to be determined by the Electric Co. not the seller of the energy.

Most Vermonters believe in honest and fair practices not government crooked dealings such as the global warming BS that is destroying the American dream. There is no honest reason why I should pay for such a dishonest operation that is for personal gain for a few political supported Developers.

The PSB knew they would have to screw their neighbors and their own children when they approved the renewable energy program. It was just a question of when.

Bob

Dear Clerk of the Board:

I understand that the PSB is currently considering altering Vermont's solar-friendly energy policy. If it does make such changes, I wish that it do so in a manner that does not reverse the state's continuing consumer demand for solar and for other green energy sources. It is clear, given the rapid onset of global climate change and the undisputed reasons for it, that Vermont should continue, not slow down, its movement toward a solar and a non-fossil fuel energy production.

Several policies that the PSB is currently considering would move Vermont backward at the very time that our state continues to be a regional and national leader in the movement away from fossil fuels.

Most sincerely,

Jack and Kathleen Shepherd Norwich

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I just read the article by Christine Hallquist ‘Pricing Renewable Energy Right’ and I agree 100% on all her points, so please adopt what she has requested.

Thank you, Luke & JoAnn LaCroix

May 8, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please promote the SUCCESS of net metering in Vermont.

Sincerely,

Thomas Gollicker, Jr. Morrisville

Dear Public Service Board:

I drove from Saxtons River to Vergennes yesterday and was pleased and proud to see all the solar panels along the way. I urge you as the Public Service Board to truly serve the public and implement rules that make it as feasible as possible for every Vermont individual, family, and business to add to our efforts to help our state and the world by economically using as much solar power as possible and reducing to an absolute minimum our use of non- renewable sources of power such as oil.

On a personal note, my wife and I made careful fiscal calculations several years ago to buy as many solar panels as possible, counting on being reimbursed through RECs over the ensuing years. I find it indefensible for the PSB to even consider for a moment changing the rules of the game for those of us who were early and eager participants in helping to bring solar electric power to Vermont. That is certainly not in the public service, although it may please other interests.

Sincerely,

John Bohannon Saxtons River

Dear PSB,

I did not know about the solar public hearings last week. But if I had I would oppose your rule changes and support keeping solar energy affordable and decentralized. I support the following recommendations and others proposed by Renewable Energy Vermont:

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

1) Set fair rates for projects that support the State’s comprehensive renewable energy goals. Customers should have access to more affordable community renewable projects. Eliminating the negative REC penalty would encourage Vermonters to generate and purchase renewable energy. 2) Allow customers to use their self-generated renewable energy over an 18 month time period to account for seasonal weather and home use shifts, transition periods before installation of efficient heat pumps, or utilization of electric vehicles, etc. 3) Encourage well-sited projects by reducing their permitting and hearing burdens. 4) Prohibit monopoly utilities from targeting renewable net-metered customers with new fees or other costly mandates (such as 3rd party audits) before choosing renewable energy. I believe that the proposed rule cuts net-metered renewable electricity value by 20 to 50%, threatening to eliminate affordable community and small business solar projects. I have a 5kv system on my house and would not have been able to afford if under the new rules.

Please do what is right for Vermonters and keep solar power a viable option for Vermont.

Sincerely ,

Robert Feinberg Putney

Dear PSB Clerk,

My name is Glenn Letourneau and I live and work in Brattleboro VT. I am a solar installer, a solar home owner, and a long time supporter of Solar Energy. The reason I am writing you today is to express my dismay in what appears to be the final draft of the new PSB Net Metering rule. As a solar installer and solar advocate, this new rule consolidates power and ownership in a large portion of new projects in the hands of large developers and utilities, and it takes away a good incentive for homeowners like myself to go solar, and penalizes those who do or who already have... this bill is disastrous and will do great harm to the state's renewable energy work force, people who would otherwise invest in renewable energy in state, and to the states overall renewable energy goals. For the past several years VT has been a leader in the renewable energy development, and renewable energy policies, and yet we still find ourselves at less than 2% of our power coming from Solar at present! Still the PSB and this new rule seems to be pandering to the utility companies (mostly GMP, and Burlington Electric) in their newfound efforts to put the kabash on non utility owned solar in the state. It is my sincere hope that the PSB does not accept this "final" draft of the rule and instead comes to a better resolution to this matter; one that doesn't hurt the states renewable energy industry moving forward, and one that doesn't punish current or future owners of renewable energy systems in state.

Sincerely Solar Installer, Solar Home Owner, Solar Advocate, and Native Born Vermonter ~Glenn A Letourneau, JR Brattleboro

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Please protect net metering rates for homeowners with rooftop solar. It has made going solar financially viable and helped usher in an era of clean electricity, which is so desperately needed to reduce harmful CO2 emissions.

Thank you, Sandra O'Flaherty South Hero

To the Public Service Board:

As Vermont Electric Coop members we want a net metering program that will be sustainable and fairly priced. The rule as currently proposed will impede Vermont Electric Coop's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electrical grid that can support increased renewable generation. VEC's ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid. Please consider this matter carefully and with the interests of Vermont Electric Coop members in mind.

Sincerely, Georgia Zaveson and Bryan Bowers VEC members Jay

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

It has come to my attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of Community Solar - essentially killing Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

1) Please do no remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This sized system has many of the advantages of solar in Vermont without the problems associated with large systems.

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency.

Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Ferananda Ibarra

As a VEC customer and member and Vermont resident, I am submitting the following comments in response to Proposed Rule 5.100.

After many years of wishing and waiting, my husband and I were able to commit to our decision to "go solar" this year when we were finally in a position financially where we could secure a loan to do so. Without clear long-term policy, there would be no real incentive or ability for home and property owners like ourselves to make an investment if the conditions of payback are subject to change in upcoming months. There's also little incentive for banks to provide loans to support the financing of home solar systems as their risk increases with this uncertainty. This lack of certainty and the current restrictions of the proposed rules, particularly for those with limited financial means or who don't own property/have property suitable for solar siting, means have the agency to choose their own energy future just won't be feasible. All of this throws a wrench in Vermont's goal to create and live a more sustainable present and future that we pride ourselves in taking the lead on.

As a VEC customer/member, I also wish to note the following:

First, net metering is fundamentally about VEC customers (i.e., VEC members), not developers. There is no project without a customer, like a school or business, consuming the power. Net metering is capped at 500kW, a fraction of the size of VEC-driven utility scale projects. Customers need to be able to count on the program they signed up under not dramatically changing over the life of the solar system.

Second, study after study has shown that statewide there is no cost shift from net metering customers to ratepayers at large. There is no difference between a customer with solar for 50% of his or her power and a customer who cuts their electric bill by 50% through efficiency. Net metering provides all ratepayers benefits from summer peak shaving, reducing transmission losses, increasing the renewable mix of the local electric grid, and, along with efficiency, has contributed to over $250 million in delayed large scale transmission upgrades financed by ratepayers. VEC continues to send out Summer Peak Alerts for its members to conserve energy at a time when solar is producing excess for the benefit of all when power is most costly.

Third, net metering is based on retail rates, which is the fairest and most regulated method of determining market realities because this is the rate where utilities get to make their guaranteed rate of return. VEC misleadingly cites the price for large scale, multi-megawatt solar prices where the State of Vermont backs up the project, comparing those projects to much smaller scale, community based net metering projects.

Fourth, business models must change with changing times. I have complete faith that if VEC embraces innovation and fully commits to a clean energy future they will succeed and benefit. I hope that the PSB and Vermont will continue to embrace a renewable energy future with consistent net metering rules

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 that encourage Vermont homeowners, farms, schools, towns, and businesses to choose affordable renewable energy on their own property or with their neighbors as part of a community project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards, Alison Lesure Hinesburg

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Although I have not read the new proposed rule for net metering myself, I am concerned with the talk of various fees - a fee for the right to go renewable, fees that make it hard to build group solar arrays.

Also, perhaps changing the rules for people who have already gone solar, not grandfathering them into their current guidelines.

With Vermont's commitment to going all renewable, why would you build in these disincentives?

Please stand strong, on making solar energy as affordable as possible, keep encouraging people to do it.

Don't make disincentives. I realize that energy companies are having to regroup in order to be profitable. Let's not try to save them at the expense of the consumer, as usual. Haven't we proven in this country that trickle-down economics does not work??

Sincerely,

Kate Kinney North Hero

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please keep net metering viable

Sincerely,

Frieda and Alfred Kloeckner Middlebury

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I support a strong net metering program and any incentives that help people utilize renewable power, whether through group solar arrays or roof-top solar panels on homes. We should do everything possible to support and encourage renewable energy.

Please keep the "grid service fee" out of the revised rule.

Please don't change the rules for people who have already chosen renewable energy; make the "grandfather clause clear."

And please support new solar arrays in places such as landfills and parking lots. As long as communities agree on the placement of solar arrays, and those arrays adhere to local zoning, it makes sense to expand solar wherever feasible.

Sincerely,

Mike Minchin Randolph

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

As a homeowner on a fixed income, access to energy/dollar savings is critical. I have spent the past two years following the guidelines for weatherizing and insulating my newly acquired house. I heat with a recommended heat pump. I am poised to utilize PV solar on my property or from a PV solar farm. Cost is always an issue.

I request the public service board take the view of the homeowner who may want to get access to solar electricity, in any form. Please do not add any fees that singularly burden solar electricity users. If a line fee is to be charged, the fee should apply to all rate payers. After all, long term, solar users will I believe keep electricity rates in line by potentially reducing the need for costly distribution lines from large single source producers.

Let's figure this out.

Thanks.

Dennis Donahue Thetford Center

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Without net metering I would not have invested in solar energy for my home. Continuing it is a no brainer!

Sincerely,

Mark Furnari S Burlington

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Renewable sources of energy should not be discouraged by placing expensive regulations on them. My husband and I put in solar panels over a year ago and since we are both living on a limited income, extra charges would put us in hardship. We made this investment to do out part to help our planet survive and to save money in the future

Sincerely,

Leslie Rathbone Cabot

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I made a significant personal investment in net-metered solar for my house three years ago. I am glad I did both for my benefit and our plant's. Changing the rules as they apply to me after the fact would be unfair. Please don't do it.

Net-metered customers already pay a monthly connect fee. Do not add an additional grid service fee.

Finally, I would suggest you provide incentives to develop solar in already built spaces such as land fills and parking lots.

Sincerely,

Scott Garren Cuttingsville

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Hello, my name is Curtis Hooper and we recently installed a net metering solar array on our home in Moretown, VT. We certainly support the ability to net-meter and think it is a good program for VT. I do not believe that there should be a grid service fee to be able to net-meter.

I feel that all people who choose to be grid connected should be able to keep this service going as long as they have the ability to feed kW into the grid. I do feel that it should be a win-win for both the residential power producer and the utility. I think that the utility should be obligated to purchase power from residential generators at the same rate they pay for wholesale power. This way we, as residential producers, would be able to see a benefit from every kW we produce, both for our own use as well as additional production that we could get paid for (at wholesale rates).

I am all for group solar arrays for people who don't have homes situated to allow for solar panels. On the other hand I don't like to see our fields and open space here in VT being filled with solar arrays. I think that VT should incentivize solar so that people will put it on their houses. I think that the incentive money should come through a small fee in the power bills of those who don't use alternative energy. I think a few cent fee per month would go a long way to pay for residential solar incentives. As it stands today, there is not enough incentive funds to go around. Commercial power should be looked at like alcohol and tobacco sin taxes. If you need to use the grid power but don't contribute to it, you should pay a little extra.

The incentives should cover all types of generation including solar, wind, hydro and maybe cold fusion energy in the future.

Sincerely, Curtis Hooper Moretown

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please support strengthening net metering laws and encouraging wind, solar and hydro so Vermont is strong and sustainable in the future.

Sincerely,

Bill Maclay Warren

May 9, 2016

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont Public Service Board

Please don't make it more expensive or harder for net metering customers. Small, local generation is essential to our long-term energy needs. Do not add fees for those of us who hope to go renewable in the near future, or raise rates for Vermonters who wish to join group solar arrays. This will have an adverse effect on the growth of the renewables industry (read JOBS).

David Schoales Brattleboro

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am writing in support of continued net metering and the use of solar arrays. Net metering has to be continued for those who have already signed a contract for net metering. The agreement was established and clearly elucidated to both parties. It is unfair and unreasonable to change the rules now after the agreement has been instigated. The costs were established and both sides agreed by contract to pursue the relationship. It is too late to change the rules. The contract has to stand as written and those that have invested the necessary finances to build these solar arrays cannot be punished at this point and forced to pay more. These people have decided to make this investment in part with attempts to save energy costs for themselves and as well for everyone. They need to be grandfathered into this agreement and not asked to begin to pay additional unexpected costs for this project

Sincerely, fred rossman morrisville

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please keep the grid service fee out of the final net metering rule. Please honor the commitment to people who have already gone renewable. Please provide incentives to build solar arrays on places like landfills, brownfields and parking lots. Thank you.

Sincerely, Laura Asermily

Sincerely,

Laura Asermily Middlebury

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please keep the grid-service fee out of the final rule for net metering. In general, please be sure that whatever you do continues to encourage Vermonters to go renewable and allows them to do so in as economical a way as possible so as many as possible can participate. It is wrong to obstruct people whose actions can help fight climate change.

Sincerely,

John Lazenby Montpelier

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I support keeping net metering as available as possible!

Sincerely, Sande French Stockwell Corinth

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

We need to be forward thinking in our approaches to global warming and not cave in to interests that would benefit from our antiquated systems.

PLEASE keep our energy as local as possible and allow group solar arrays for people who want to do THE RIGHT THING!

For those who are concerned about NIMBY,PLEASE give incentives to locate arrays on waste places and other less dis enable locations. I woud so much prefer to look at solar arrays than 100 houses in ten acres!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Sarah Fellows Williston

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Vermont needs net metering. Whatever it takes, solar is one part of the future. An important part. Putting most of our eggs in one basket, Quebec hydro, is short sighted. Look what happened this week with a single fire in western Canada. Energy diversity is always smart and using energy from the sun is very smart.

Vermont also needs to look very carefully at any future proposal that would result in paying solar companies less money for the energy credits which must now be sold outside the state as no in-state market exists. We don't have many solar installers; they must be supported. Assuming the people who built the solar business in Vermont will continue to try to expanding the solar footprint in Vermont as vigorously as before, while earning significantly less money, is not the most intelligent gamble.

Sincerely,

John B Evans Dummerston

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

We need to help make sure the final rule assures continued success of Vermont's net metering and doesn't impede the state's transition to clean power sources.

Sincerely,

Neal Graham S. Burlington

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am a Vermonter who has just recently committed to a future of clean energy by installing our own solar array. I hope that the Public Service Board helps me and others like to continue the success of our net metering program. A major concern of mine is the grid service fee. I understand the current revision of the draft rule does not include this. The final version should not include this fee. Also, it is imperative that the grandfathering section is absolutely unambiguous. For those of us who already participate in net metering, the rules should not change. Please give these concerns serious consideration. There are many of us who are committed to clean energy. We should support those who currently net meter and encourage others to join.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Sincerely,

Eric Bauernschmidt

West Windsor

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Dear Public Service Board Members;

Please keep the net metering rates strong and consider improving them! In the end, renewable energy is the way to go since it is simply renewable! Every time I fly over major cities & see all the flat roof warehouses I think we could be fossil fuel free fairly easily.

My family is just about to invest in Solar and several of our friends have done so. So, please make this an even better investment by keeping net metering rates in place.

Sincerely,

Bob Hemmer Shaftsbury

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Hello,

When I purchased my solar system, incentives for me were getting a premium for the power it produced, and an ability to sell excess power to help pay for the system. These were major reasons why I purchased my system. I was never told that these incentives could or would be taken away. It is very upsetting to me to think that they might be taken away. It would also reduce the incentive for others to go solar, when going solar makes the most sense for electrical generation. I certainly hope you will strongly consider preserving these incentives, and dropping any plan to penalize future solar generation customers.

Sincerely,

William Leeuw Lincoln

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Solar should be encouraged at all levels. Let us keep going forward.

Sincerely,

Joseph R Morel Barnard

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

A well crafted net-metering system is vital to cleaning up our grid and making our power sources more resilient. It means we can not only begin meeting our climate goals but also position ourselves to resist power outages during disasters.

We also need to ensure that community solar is incentivized--not discouraged. This helps scale solar energy across the state and region, as they are doing in Massachusetts. Vermont should be a leader in shifting to renewable, and instead we're lagging because of misguided regulations. Time to move FORWARD!

Sincerely,

Paula Melton Brattleboro

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Thanks for taking comments. I agree that net metering should be easy and a good deal for those who chose it. But I also support some type of fee that will allow the lines which carry the power to be maintained.

This should be a rate which is shared by all (both solar and regular rate payers). Otherwise the full burden of maintaining our grid is on non-solar rate payers.

Thank you, Kim Dunkley Johnson

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I appreciate that we are going to continue to support net metering as a state. As someone who recently invested in solar it is very important to me that the final rule should be clear in regards to grandfathering for those of us that invested in solar already and that there will be no changes to the existing rules I am operating under.

I also hope that there will not be a grid service fee and make net metering more expensive and therefore less popular. We need to incentivize Vermonters as much as possible to invest in solar and other renewables so anything that hinders that should be left out.

Sincerely,

Matthew Koch Morrisville

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

To The PSB

I have invested in solar energy and think that we should make it attractive to have others do the same. By adding a grid service fee, we are penalizing those who paid a lot of money to invest in renewable energy. We are targeting the wrong people. Our way out of this energy crisis is for everyone to step up and do their part. We should keep the incentives in renewables.

Sincerely,

Wendy Erikson Vergennes

May 10, 2016 Vermont Public Service Board

I had solar panels installed five years ago with the understanding that I would never pay a grid service fee. Now it seems that may not be the case. While I do not support this fee for anyone considering investing in clean solar energy, it certainly seems unfair to change the rules for those of us who lead the way. Respectfully, Donna Fialkoff

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

A few comments on the rule: Stay away from a "grid service fee" - connection fees already in place should suffice.

Folks who have already invested in solar - shouldn't have the rules changed on them.

Proposed rates should encourage - and not discourage - group net metering, which is opening up opportunities for a range of Vermonters to go solar.

Sincerely,

Noah Pollock Burlington

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

We have recently built a net zero home with its own solar array. Please continue support of net metering state wide.

Please do not add a service fee. We should be working to re-establish the concept that our sun and water are world and national resources that belong to the people and our societies.. They should not belong to or be controlled by individuals and used as a means for individual profit.

Please to not retreat from the commitments you have made to those of us who have already moved forward with this. We should have a fair return for the investments and sacrifices we have made.

We should not be hampering added solar growth but should be continuing to encourage movement away from non-renewable fuels.

Sincerely,

Fred Faudie Norwich

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont needs to use the natural resources it has, sun and wind. It amazes us to travel in Texas for miles and miles and see nothing but wind power! They plan ahead!

Praise don't punish those that want to renewable s - no fees.

We need to 'plant' group solar arrays in places where people want them....make incentives that will encourage this.

Don't let the gigantic oil lobbyist decide what is right for us.....

Florence and Philip Higgins Fairfield, VT

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Hello I encourage you to continue to build upon the success of net metering Don't reduce options for group solar arrays Keep the access to the grid free Thank you for all you do

Sincerely,

Nicholas Harmon

Waitsfield

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Here are my specific concerns:

As currently written, the grandfathering section is ambiguous. The Board should be crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people who have already gone renewable and isn't changing the rules they're operating under. This would be really unfair. I am strongly opposed to changing the rules for the folks that have already gone renewable.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 necessary to actually get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. The Board should address this.

Do the right thing for Vermont and the environment.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Kimball Essex Junction

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Good Morning,

I am a GMP customer who has a solar tracker in my back yard. I have had the tracker for many years and am so pleased by the electricity it provides my home. I am on net metering and at times produce more electricity than I use. I am very concerned about the legislation that limits the advantages of net metering. Specifically:

1) There should be no grid service fee. I understand the revised legislation does not include this and it needs to stay out of any future revisions.

2) People who had the foresight and opportunity to invest in renewables and net metering should not be penalized in any way, and should be able to maintain the benefits, including carry-forward of credits, that they have had.

3) In general, the PSB should encourage renewables and put in place incentives to allow Vermonters to invest in them. The current legislation would accomplish the opposite.

The Board should do the right thing and stand up for Vermonters who are doing just that. Please take this into consideration.

Thank you.

Wendy Phippen Colchester

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Vermont should be building on the success of net metering. The revised rule does not include a grid service fee. This would be a new monthly fee for the right to go renewable that would drive up the cost of net metering, and drive down participation. The Board should keep the grid service fee out of the final rule. As currently written, the grandfathering section is ambiguous. The Board should be crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people who have already gone renewable and isn't changing the rules they're operating under. The proposed rates will make it harder to build group solar arrays, limiting options for Vermonters who don't have a suitable roof themselves. Furthermore the rule does not provide additional incentives necessary to actually get solar built on places like landfills and parking lots. The Board should address this.

Sincerely,

Eesha Williams Dummerston

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please consider my opinion regarding the proposed revisions to Vermont's net metering program: - Vermont's goal should be to meet our overall percentage targets, as per state law. Any changes made should be towards that end. - Please clarify expectations for currently net metered residential projects. thanks for your hard work on these important rules.

Sincerely,

Nick Seifert Marshfield

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please ensure that homeowners can rely on Vermont's commitment to keep solar affordable for all of us. Community solar is a very practical way to get non-fossil electricity to homeowners and is less disruptive to the scenic environment

Sincerely,

Darlene Palola Huntington

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Vermont is currently one of the states in the nation which are going to lead into a next generation of utilities and utility infrastructure. Net Metering should be considered the transition into the next gen utility infrastructure. Making it harder for people to go solar, will only inhibit this process! The success of net metering should be the stepping stone, not a stumbling block to where Vermont is going with it's energy future.

I'm closing on my first house at the end of this month, and I'd love to go solar.

Sincerely,

Andrew Sepic Westford

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am current net metering member and VPIRG's concerns are also my concerns.

Sincerely,

Pierre Lemieux Cambridge

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

We are pleased the revised rule does not include a grid service fee. Incentives for solar must be kept in place, commitments made in the past to those who have gone renewable must be maintained and we urge he board to incentivize proposals to site solar on places like landfills and parking lots. It is important as well, to keep the RECs instate. To actually build out the solar capacity of the region, it is important that Vermont does not take on the burden for the region, thereby filling available space for our own renewable power with units producing RECs for other states, effectively transforming Vermont into a power source, a solar farm for other states, sparing them the need to build their own and with a net result of fewer solar resources over all and over building in Vermont.

Sincerely,

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Bob & Deborah Messing Montpelier

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

The costs of global warming are climbing faster than we can imagine. Everything that can be done must be done to keep this looming disaster at bay. Please make no changes to the net metering process and incentives that have allowed so many Vermonters to take real action on global warming.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey York Jericho

May 9, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Solar electric power is growing fast, because of the various supports like net metering. Without a good net metering benefit, growth will halt. There are those who say "solar is not competitive", that the Granite Ridge natural gas power plant in New Hampshire can provide electricity more cheaply by burning 125,000,000 cubic feet of fracked gas every day. When we burn that gas, we are sealing the fate of our grandchildren who will not have ANY affordable gas who will live in a very strange new environment. We NEED to move to solar, and fast. Let's see Granite Ridge close down in 5 years.

The free market is great in most ways. But it does not plan ahead for depletion, and it cares nothing whatever about environmental damage. Please keep net metering strong.

Sincerely,

Bill Christian North Bennington

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Keep net metering strong and viable, please!

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Sincerely,

Betsy Bahrenburg

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

We currently have a solar system at our home, with 36 panels supplying our electric needs. I am writing to express my concern that Vermont should keep its commitment to people like my wife and I, who have already gone renewable... and that the rules do NOT change for us. In other words, no monthly grid service fees... or any other add-on that we did not sign up for.

I'm already upset over the fact that I was expressly told by GMP before my installation in Nov 2014, that I would NEVER lose my excess credit, that GMP was "committed" to ensuring I would be able to keep excess credit. We oversized our solar installation in order to make room for an anticipated "plug-in" vehicle in the future... consequently, we are now running over $1,100 credit. GMP blames the public service board for this change in rules... whatever... all I know is I now have to figure out how to use that credit in some way before losing it (after one year). I'm not happy about that.

I would encourage you to do nothing that makes it harder for folks to go solar... alternative energy needs all the boosting it can get. Although I know it's probably a lost cause, I would also like for the PSB to reconsider the rules that govern excess credits, especially for those of us who were told we'd never lose our credits. It's a shame that we generate our power from our own solar panels... and then that excess is sucked back to GMP if we don't use it within a year. GMPs answer to this dilemma is to group meter OR to buy/lease one of their heat pumps, etc... to use more electric. I don't like that answer.

On the positive side, I am appreciative of just having the opportunity to go solar... and I want to thank you for making that possible. I'd just like you to reconsider a couple of those poor decisions that have affected early adopters adversely and unfairly... especially, the rule around excess credits.

Sincerely,

Steve Arthur Benson

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

This is Vermont, a state and a group of people who have always been strong in thinking for ourselves. Going renewable is the best long-term choice.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Though I have yet to go renewable, I want to be able to afford that option in the future. Making renewable a non-option is a short-term approach. Eventually the oil will run out, eventually the gas will run out, eventually the coal will run out, and eventually renewable will be the only viable option. No matter how much money the oil, gas, and coal industries make, it will never be enough to avoid the fact that all of these resources will eventually run out. Please think ahead. Any advancements in the technology of renewable resources will pay off. Any infrastructure developed and established will help support and stabilize our current electrical platform, (which is old, crumbling, and vulnerable). (In addition, we no longer have a railroad system in place that will allow the replacement of our electrical configurations in a timely manner.)

Sincerely,

Michele Gonzales Plainfield

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I believe that the cost of maintaining the energy infrastructure should be shared equally by homeowners, including those who are off the grid. Like the cost of education. Perhaps a state tax obligation. Perhaps shared by all people in the service area covered by the energy provider. The advent of alternate sources of energy should not cause energy costs for people who dont or cant afford solar to increase. Thats unfair.

Maybe its time to address the inequities of energy costs statewide, where rural ( and often less affluent) folks pay higher rates because of higher infrastructure maintenance costs.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Drew Vershire

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Dear Public Service Board: My husband and I installed 2 standing solar arrays in January 2014. We paid $20,000 plus for the arrays. We didn't really need 2, we needed 1 and 1/2 to cover our electric bill each month, but as you know, you can't buy a 1/2.

We were told by Green Mountain Power that we would be able to cash in the extra credits twice a year. We decided we should wait a year to see how much extra power we generated.

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

At the end of the year, we called GMP to find out about cashing them in, because we didn't want to lose them. We were told that the credits would roll over, so we opted to carry them over. We received a letter from GMP in February telling us that we will no longer be able to accrue our extra solar credits; that they will expire after a year. Our options are to either set up a group to give them away, or to just let GMP have them.

I spoke with GMP, and they said I need to set up percentages to go to each of the parties who will receive the credits. I told them under NO circumstances do I want my bill not paid in full each billing period.

Why would I spend $20,000 and have to pay a bill each month when there are plenty of credits to cover it?

I was then told that I could have my bill paid first, then split between the other parties, but I will have to pay $6.50 for each of those parties, because that is a manual transaction.

First of all, I feel I am being severely taken advantage of. If I do not (or can not) form a group, GMP will take the credits from me, and profit from their use. This seems like theft of service.

My husband and I thought we were doing the right thing for the environment in purchasing the solar arrays. We agreed to the terms that were set up at the time by the Public Service Board and GMP. We do not agree with what is being presented now.

We see that a new monthly fee for the right to go renewable is being proposed. We don't agree with this, and feel it's just another fee that GMP will profit from.

We believe that current net metering customers should not be negatively impacted in any way, by any of the new terms you are proposing. There should certainly be a grandfather clause.

I don't think you should create rates that make it harder for group solar arrays to be built, allowing people who are unable to have arrays on their property to go solar, which is quite a responsible environmental action.

To say the least, we are extremely displeased with you and with GMP. Sincerely, June Moncrief Vergennes

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Keep net metering Strong and Viable!

100

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Please don't make it more difficult for Vermonters to transition to clean power sources.

Sincerely,

Susan Detato Brownington

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please do not make the switch to solar energy harder or more costly for those of us trying to do something positive for our climate. It is already difficult enough to do this for the ordinary person. Please no grid fees or other negative impacts for those of us who have already risked the financial burden of investing for the benefit of all. Help group solar arrays, don't tax them! This issue is more important than greed!

Sincerely,

Holiday Eamrd

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Dear PSB,

Last July I joined a community solar array that is located in nearby Bradford. I am extremely pleased to be supporting renewable energy. I joined the CSA primarily for this reason rather than for the hope of reducing my monthly Green Mountain Power bill. Looks like I'll be breaking even on my bills overall, which is fine with me as, in my view, support of clean energy is priceless.

101

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I would not have been able to join the CSA if monthly service fees had been part of the cost as I thrive on a very small income (self-employed single person). I urge you to keep a grid service fee out of the picture! We do not want to discourage people from going renewable and adding such a fee would do so as there are many Vermonters who are on a limited income.

Please keep net metering possible for our citizens by keeping extra fees out of the picture! By doing so, everyone wins in the long run.

Anne McKinsey East Corinth

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please keep VT's commitment to net metering strong for people who have already committed their homes to renewable energy! Please do not change the rules and make it more difficult to engage in renewables!

Sincerely,

Sylvia Knight Burlington

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

While the latest draft of the net metering rule is an improvement over the version proposed in January, there are important issues which still need to be clarified and added to the final rule. Special concerns include the following:

- Grid service fee: A new monthly fee imposed on the right to go renewable would drive down participation in moving forward with renewable energy in the state. Any grid service fee must be kept out of the new rule.

- Grandfathering: This section must be completely clear on the commitment to Vermonters who already have renewable energy sources and that the operating rules will not have a negative impact on them.

- Rates: Proposed rates should make it easier, not harder, for solar array groups to be built. Additional incentives for arrays on landfills and parking lots should also be addressed, giving Vermonters more options to move to renewable energy.

102

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Your positive attention to these issues will substantially help Vermont in achieving its goals to make renewables a main source of energy.

Sincerely,

Anne Jameson Marshfield

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am all for anything that will encourage rather than discourage Vermonters from stepping up to the plate and doing what it takes to help all of us reduce the effects of our use of resources and energy that is not renewable. Please keep the future, of the earth and our grandchildren in mind as you consider the rule. Thank you, Laura

Sincerely,

Laura Ruth North Middlesex

Read a draft of this rule and wanted to weigh in.

Vermont needs to be a leader in this country in promoting sustainable energy like solar. As news of extreme weather events, fires, and data on global warming streams at us daily, only those sticking their heads in the sand can overlook this and not want to do everything in our power to come up with alternatives to coal and oil.

I think some progress has been made over the previous draft, but it still falls way short. Incentives need to be much stronger for developing solar projects, we should eliminate the grid service fee, net metering rules should not be amended after the fact, folks should be rewarded for retiring RECs in Vermont, and the state should be actively promoting solar investment by increasing, rather than decreasing solar incentives that make solar purchases affordable for the average Vermonter.

These things seem like no brainers in a progressive state like ours. How can we have such progressive senators like Leahy and Sanders and at the same time quietly, in small ways, pull back on our commitment to solar? It makes absolutely no sense and makes me think we are more beholden to utilities like GMP than we are to saving our planet.

Thanks for considering,

Ben Sparks Norwich, VT

103

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

To whom it may concern:

As a supporter of renewable energy and member of Vt. Electric Coop, I protest the exclusion of transmission/grid costs from the current 'net metering' program and wish to address other associated concerns.

No free ride: The 'net metered' power producers use the grid doubly in receiving and transmitting power yet provide no support for the necessary infrastructure. There needs to be a users fee determined by the size of power both transmitted as well as received for the maintenance and development of the grid. Since the ability to make the appropriate investments decreases as fewer members pay for their use of the grid, the net metering rule as currently proposed will impede VEC's and other small coop's progress toward the goal of creating a robust electric grid that can support increased renewable generation.

Justify prices: The 'net metered' energy producers receive a substantial bonus above market rate even though the costs can not be substantiated when the the private developers' books are closed. The cost needs to be justified to be able to adequately assess a fair and proper value of the power produced.

Support VT economy: The development of locally produced and consumed 'net metered' power projects needs to be given priority over power which is shipped out of state. Large projects which ship the power out of state should not compete with local power projects especially if VT receives no REC credit. Our mountain tops and agricultural lands shouldn't be marred for the out of state interests.

While this program initially needed to be lucrative to attract 'net metered' development, the overwhelming construction of new projects proves the success of the program. These incentives are excessive and punitive to the regular ratepayers who bear the additional burden of paying for the grid. The free ride of the net metered projects unfairly targets the non metered ratepayers who often are low income and less able to afford the increased financial burden. This is not a cost effective or sustainable situation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Angela Gatesy Huntington

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

104

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

1) Please do no remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry.

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Joseph Moriarty

Vermont Public Service Board RE: Proposed Rule 5.100

May 10, 2016

Dear Vermont Public Service Board:

A a developer and operator of affordable housing in Lamoille County and Hardwick, I would like to voice my support for the continuation of net-metering for Vermonters and urge you to keep it as advantageous as possible for home owners and renters.

Lamoille Housing Partnership is in the process of installing a dozen high efficiency Vermod Homes as replacements for old mobile homes into a mobile home park in Hardwick. These are all electric homes that offer affordable, clean, and efficient living. They are installed with rooftop solar pv to power the homes. However, without net-metering they do not and cannot operate as designed. We currently have two Vermod homes in the park that have net-metering under the current rules. They cost the occupants approximately $230 a year in operating costs including heat and ventilation thereby nearly eliminating the highest cost to a Hardwick resident – utilities – instantly helping lower the cost of living for these residents.

As we rehab our properties we are always looking for ways to reduce operating costs. These include adding insulation, updating heating and ventilation systems, and adding solar capacity where

105

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 appropriate. We have many properties that could add rooftop solar pv if it made sense. With net- metering it makes perfect sense and works to help reduce the cost of housing for Vermonters.

As part of a state-wide industry, our mission is to serve low and moderate income residents, workers and homeless. By adding solar systems and getting the benefits of net-metering we can help this part of our population “go solar”. With previous caps in place and short periods of enrollment, many Vermonters with the ability to purchase a solar system and get awarded the net-metering are benefiting from their investments while others are being left out. Continuing to have net-metering, without caps, at attractive rates, will allow many more Vermont residents to benefit from renewable energy and allow organizations like ours to support local, regional and state-wide energy goals. With caps in place, many Vermonters are being denied the opportunities available with renewable energy production options.

We support new rules that have no cap and require local utilities to allow interconnection of renewable energy sources like solar and wind and pay the producer at a reasonable rate similar to the existing rules, that encourage future investments in alternatives and help reach our state-wide energy goals.

Sincerely, Jim Lovinsky E. Hardwick, VT Lamoille Housing Partnership

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

It has come to my attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of installing new Community Solar - essentially killing the future of Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

106

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Amy Plavin

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, David Pennock

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

107

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, BOB TEREE

Dear Public Service Board,

We invested in Vermont Community Solar last year and are very pleased with our savings to date.

Now we understand that you are proposing to retroactively change the rules for our existing investment in ways that penalize us after we have made a long-term commitment.

How do you expect Vermonters to make investments in our energy future if we cannot trust our state government to honor long-term agreements like this?

So I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

It has come to my attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of new Community Solar installations - essentially killing the future of Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

108

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

-Adrian Segar-

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

109

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Dan Connor

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100. It has come to my attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of installing new Community Solar - essentially killing the future of Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy. Specifically I would like to request the following: 1) Please do no remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry. 2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, KURT EMERSON

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

110

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time: Please, please think about the above.

Sincerely, Jay Cook

As you consider making rules for net metering, please be sure the rules are fair to rate payers and that utilities do not over pay for production from large scale producers of electricity. They must not take the incentive away from the small rooftop producers.

Andrew Dennison

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

111

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Carrie Walker Dummerston

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Frances Thorndike

112

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board Member,

I am a reasoned, motivated and proud owner of a number of panels in the Springfield Community Solar Farm and am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont (150 KW and smaller), and to ask you to change specific proposed language in your proposed rule 5.100.

First and most importantly to me financially, I invested in the belief that I would receive 30 years of net metering credits and that such would enable me to retire and live “off the grid” through my retirement. This investment horizon was integral to my decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with what I expect from a state agency. Rather, I expect appropriate grandfathering and that you re-consider your decision, such that even new systems also receive credit for 30 years. In the event that you decide to remove the incentives going forward, @ the very least, please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING Solar net metering to 20 years.

Were you to leave rule 5100 unchanged, it will likely result in the loss of hundreds (if not thousands), of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy (one of the reasons I’ve chosen Vermont to retire in).

Please do not remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less, so that the viability of Community Solar in Vermont may continue. To leave the rule as is will no doubt increase the likelihood of job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry. Respectfully,

Mark A. Williams Managing Director Urbana Properties NY, NY

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years.

113

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years.

Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy.

Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

HANS HAMMARQUIST

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

114

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Jane Schaeffer

I am writing about proposed Rule 5.100. I have been told that the proposed rule would limit existing community solar installations to 20 years of net metering. I own solar panels and think it would be unfair to change the rules on panels that are already installed. Please exempt existing solar panels from any new limits on net metering. Sincerely, Jacob Speidel

To the PSB, I am a customer of Vermont Electric coop and I feel the net metering is not fairly priced for all customers and need a fiscal responsibility in the rate setting process. The net metering should include an appropriate "Grid service fee" for they are still using the grid and should contribute their fair share. Also, not convinced that paying out .20 cents kWh is justifiable or sustainable for our members. Thank you Darlene Symons Enosburg Falls

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

115

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, William Ortlieb

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Jeff Clearwater

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

116

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Jane Fitzwilliam

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

117

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Nathan Potter

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Marcia Spencer

I strongly urge you to avoid major changes to the current system of prices and adders for small scale solar. It’s definitely not appropriate to change the rules for anyone who is already online- people have

118

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 made major financial commitments based on certain assumptions. If a change is absolutely necessary to existing systems it should not start for at least 5 years and perhaps phase in for the next several years after that.

While it’s understandable that the current system may not be sustainable, it’s also important to realize that solar power produces during peak times and should reduce our need to expand the grid from afar. When we do that, we all end up paying. This is in essence no different- solar producers reduce the need to expand supply and supply lines.

Thanks, Daniel Gottlieb Norwich

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing as the Executive Director of a nonprofit organization that supports the expansion of renewable energy sources in Vermont. Through my work, I have seen the dramatic growth of solar in our area, particularly community solar – and also the concerns that have been raised about the siting of some large arrays.

I am glad to see that Rule 5.100 to some extent rewards solar projects built in locations such as landfills, brownfields, and other developed spaces. Since the cost of building solar arrays in these locations is often much more expensive, however, the incentives in the rule should be strong enough to reflect this added expense.

The new rule does not include a grid service fee, and such a fee should not be added, as it would increase the cost of net metering and reduce participation.

I am concerned that Vermonters who have already invested in solar systems under existing rules not be penalized by changes in the rules. Vermont should keep its commitment to residents who have already gone renewable, and the language in the new rule should clearly reflect this assurance.

The majority of people in our area and statewide are unable to site a solar system on their home, either because they rent, or because they do not have a suitable roof or yard. The rates in the proposed new rule will make it harder for group solar arrays to be built, limiting the options for these Vermonters. Please reconsider the proposed rates and make sure that the new program continues to support the development of group solar arrays so that customers have a wide range of options.

The new rule imposes a financial penalty on customers who retain a project’s Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). This should be changed, as the new rule should reward customers who retire their RECs in Vermont. By doing so, these customers are providing a valuable benefit to Vermont and the rule should reflect that.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely, Paul Cameron

119

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Brattleboro Climate Protection Brattleboro

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Gary Scholl

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please insure the continuing success of net metering by keeping the grid service fee out of the final rule and by facilitating the construction of group solar arrays rather than limiting the options for folks without suitable roofs for solar installation. Additionally, insure the state's commitment to Vermonters who have chosen renewable energy by not changing the rules under which they are operating.

Sincerely,

120

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Natalee Braun Essex Junction

Members of the Board:

Thank you for the opportunity to address you last week and I offer the following comments and suggestions that I was not, due to time, able to offer last week. The comments are a synopsis I offered in a letter to the editor early last week and excerpts from a talk I made at Harvard earlier this year. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I remember the discussions that made me proud to be a resident of Vermont. A State that lead all others to consider and embrace social responsibility, championing causes such as nuclear non- proliferation, equal rights, gay marriage and sustainability. Unfortunately, the short sighted, literally, pending legislation relative to solar implementation across Vermont will have, if not legislated responsibly, devastating effects upon Vermont’s economy, Vermont’s legacy and renewable energy on a national level. The rest of the country is watching….

We can encourage renewable development, job growth, savings to tax payers and rate payers while minimizing the aesthetic implications of solar with proper siting regulations on a State wide level.

Specifically the bill should include: -projects located on top of, adjoining or on parcels abutting municipal buildings, schools and 501-c entities as both sites and off-takers of the electricity generated should be encouraged via a bonus in the net metering rate or the allowed size of the array. -net metering projects located on agricultural land, working farms, should be allowed and incentivized through a bonus density allowing a larger array up to 150%. -net metering projects which result in removing phosphorous from the Lake Champlain basin should be allowed and incentivized through a bonus density development allowing a larger array up to 150%. -projects that keep the investment tax credits within Vermont should be allowed a 20% bonus density and the credits should be allowed a carry forward to be applied to estate taxes; solar is creating jobs and it should also be utilized to keep tax dollars in Vermont. -all projects should be required to have 60% screening as depicted on a “moving” digital representation. -all projects should be minimum setback from property lines and roadways as depicted in the municipal plan for the applicable town. -Net metering prices should be the residential rate within the applicable utility territory. The net metering rates provided years ago were reflective of a much more expensive development price for solar than today’s rates. Solar now makes economic sense for all parties on both sides of the solar tables.

121

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 revoke its recent recommendations. I encourage the House and Senate to reconsider their recent efforts as well. A unified policy that encourages a sustainable mission, promotes a distributed grid, minimizes expenses to rate payers and stimulates investment is easily achievable.

Let’s return Vermont to the forefront of responsible leadership on a global level.

Gregg Beldock

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Emily Clifford Jackson

Community solar is a great thing for Vermont. We have invested strongly in this and very much support it for Vermont and our planet. Do not limit existing and new solar lent metering to 20 years.

Stewart McDermet

122

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

1) Please do no removeÂ existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry.

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

In addition, there's a problem with the fact that an individual is allowed to belong to only one net metering group at a time. This makes it impossible to buy additional panels if there are no more available within one's original net metering group (that is, within one's initial community solar installation). In my case, that means that if I have increased my usage, and need more capacity, there's no way for me to buy it other than selling all my existing panels (if I can) and buying a new, larger array. This is not a workable solution for most people.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Micheal Maffie

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

123

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Lorraine and Steve Harrigan

Dear Public Service Board,

We are in our 60's and have been WIndham County residents for over 40 years.

For the past two years we have been members of a 150W Community Solar installation in southeastern Vermont. This reflected our commitment to the critically important renewable energy goals that Vermont has taken the lead on. This was a challenging financial decision for our household, but it seemed prudent, given the long term financial incentives which were made possible by the PSB's Rules.

We have just heard about and read a letter, dated March 3, which was sent to you by Olivia Campbell Andersen, Executive Director of Renewable Energy Vermont. We will not try to repeat all the well expressed concerns which she detailed and which we share. Suffice it to say, that we believe that the thousands of people, like ourselves, who have trusted that the PSB rules, which we relied upon to make our investment decision, would not be pulled out from under us. Solar offers Vermont and individual Vermonters a chance at energy independence; is a source of thousands of jobs; and helps Vermont respond to the urgent threat of Climate Change.

Please "grandfather" current community solar participants, and please make sure that your efforts to improve the rules does not "throw out the baby with the bathwater." We should be encouraging more alternative energy investment by individuals, but if you undermine the significant financial commitment that so many of us have already made, who will trust the system enough in the future to be willing to invest?

124

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. This is a critical moment for Vermont. We look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Cliff Adler and Lynn Levine East Dummerston

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Cathy Collins

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

125

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Maggie Chase

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Dear Members of the Board,

We will need to progress toward renewable energy in order to maintain our current standard of living. One way to accomplish this is to allow individuals to take advantage of solar power and net metering, which makes the cost of this system more reasonable for the average person.

If the energy companies are concerned about making a profit maybe they should become more, not less, invested in solar power and other renewables so they can take advantage of its growth.

Sincerely,

Jane Olmstead Newfane to whom it may concern:

126

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

While the latest draft is an improvement from last December we think it could be strengthened to attract more solar installations and continue the momentum that is moving us away from fossil fuels. Specifically:

1) Grid service fees: glad these have been removed in current version - we hope they don’t reappear, as this would be a disincentive to invest in solar.

2) Grandfathered projects: it should be made clear that such arrangements made with existing customers will not be compromised in the future. It seems inconceivable that this could happen, but if rules were to change it would constitute a serious breach of trust and create a lot of unhappy customers.

3) Rate design: Proposed credit levels by the PSB should be reconsidered to insure that a solar investment remains attractive for Vermonters.

4) We don’t understand why there should be any penalty for customers who retain RECs. It seems that a reward/incentive would be more appropriate if the State is serious about taking every feasible step to reduce GHG emissions.

Thanks for your consideration,

Respectfully,

Stuart White Norwich

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

127

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Andrew Leven

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

1) Please do not remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry.

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Bert Picard

Hi, Public Service Board members,

I am writing in regard to just some aspects of the proposed rule 5.100.

Small-scale solar systems produce electricity more expensively than large systems. They will increase the social cost of transitioning to renewable energy. I understand that some people value the

128

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 democratic nature of small-scale production. I am aware of the criticism from members of our low- income community that the commonly promoted low-carbon alternatives are financially out of reach for them. Our resources for making the transition are limited, also. I believe we should make the most effective possible use of these resources and establish policies that encourage development of energy production at economically competitive scale. Transitioning to a renewably powered economy will cost plenty, without using high-cost production systems.

While I do see net metering as very beneficial to people who own solar panels, I don't see it as benefiting people who don't own solar panels. The more kilowatt hours that come into the grid from net-metered sources, the fewer kilowatt hours the utility is paid to distribute. The cost of maintaining the grid, however, does not go down. As a result the utility must charge more per kilowatt hour for the electricity it sells. Increasing the net-metered content of the grid will increase the rates the paying customers pay. A grid service fee will keep the cost of maintaining the grid spread over all the kilowatt hours, not just paid hours. I support establishment of a grid service fee that fairly spreads the costs of operating and maintaining the grid.

Allowing renewable, net-metered power sources to retain their RECs while paying them the renewable- energy bonus (+$0.03 rate adjuster) would raise electricity rates for paying consumers. To meet renewable portfolio standards, utilities would have to buy RECs from other sources, adding to the cost of the electricity they supply and raising electricity rates. Net metering already pays producers of renewable energy a substantial premium over wholesale-market prices. Renewable energy is produced more cheaply than conventional energy in some places, but not all places. Producing energy renewabaly won't be profitable in some situations. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for making small-scale systems profitable. In addition, a business owning a portion of the net-metered source that retains its RECs can claim that its products are produced with renewable energy and charge a premium for those products. In effect, it gets paid twice for the renewableness of the electricity it produces. I do not support paying the rate adjuster to systems that do not transfer their RECs to their utilities.

Appetite for producing renewable electricity in Vt does exist among individual investors. It could be satisfied by creating a vehicle that allows individuals and small businesses to invest in economically scaled renewable power production systems that bear their share of the cost of the grid.

I do not want our transition to renewable energy to be made in a manner that adds to the financial stress of low-income households or that adds to the cost of the transition.

Yours sincerely, Rick Wackernagel Burlington

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Dear VPS Board,

129

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I support the positions taken by the VPIRG organization. Any position by you that VPIRG opposes, I and my wife also oppose. And we will remember the positions you take on issues of interest to us when it is time to vote.

Sincerely,

Bill Racolin Alison Williams Charlotte

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

The state of Vermont has committed goals to move toward increasing clean and renewable energy sources, and I'd like the Public Service Board to make it as affordable as possible for Vermonters to become new solar energy customers AND to honor agreements with people like myself who have installed solar panels with agreements that I want to see stay in place. i do not want any extra fees, please.

Sincerely,

Alice Trageser Charlotte

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

130

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Gary Sachs

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Board's proposed rule governing net metering. I am writing as a solar homeowner since 2012 and a member of a town energy committee that has been very active in encouraging our residents to go solar.

The current draft is much improved over earlier versions, but could be improved further.

* Providing incentives for solar projects built on landfills, brownfields, and locations identified by municipalities is good, but I am concerned that the incentives are not strong enough to cover the additional development and maintenance costs that these locations will entail.

* The current rule has dropped the grid service fee that was in a previous draft, and I can't say strongly enough how important it is to keep it out. A grid service fee would be a barrier to net-metering.

* The language relating to customers who have already invested in net metering projects is still too ambiguous. The rule should be clear that there are no changes to the rules under which existing net- metering customers operate.

* Please reconsider the rates. As they stand now, the rates will very likely result in fewer group solar arrays, which means fewer options for renters and folks who don’t have a suitable roof or yard on their own property.

* There shouldn't be a rate penalty for customers who retain their Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). Better to set rates that fairly reflect the real benefit provided by customers who retire their RECs in Vermont.

Sincerely,

Linda Gray Norwich

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

131

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Nancy Connor

Given the lower price of gas/diesel, one is not as concerned about the price and availability of energy at the moment. But that will not last. Perhaps the fires in Canada are a little harder to connect with energy and climate change but they are. And if, God forbid, we elect a President who increases coal production (as promised in West Virginia and Utah), we are heading for disaster. We MUST continue to support renewables wherever we can. Net metering is one such way that Vermont can play its part in that. Yes, our infrastructure may need to be upgraded in many areas, but that should be done regardless the source? The fires in Canada remind us how vulnerable our forests are when there is a significant changes in the climate. Please continue the net metering program which enable some of us to contribute to energy production.

Alice and Tom Soininen Sutton

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

132

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Marshall Brewer and John Calvi Putney

Public Service Board (PSB) Vermont

To whom it may concern:

My wife and I are Vermont citizens and currently are homeowners with a 5 Kw roof mounted solar array. We appreciate what the State has done to date to encourage citizens to reduce our dependence on fossils fuels. As a physician I know the overall adverse health complications, which are implicated with the fossil fuel industry, along with their adverse effects on global climate change.

We have been informed, that you are in the process of updating Vermont’s net metering program, which will take effect next January. We would like to offer some comments relative to Proposed Rule 5.100, for you to consider during your deliberations ·

? We were happy to see that you are encouraging projects to be built on locations, which have identified by municipalities such as landfills, brownfields. Please consider incentives for locations which may be more costly to develop and to maintain ? It’s important that the policy of no grid service fees continue, so as encourage participation by individuals choosing residential solar, likewise PSB should not change the rules of the road for customers who have already invested in net metering projects.

133

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

? In order to make it easier for Vermonters who don’t have a suitable roof or property for their personal solar array– or who rent to build group solar arrays, PSB should reconsider the rates and make sure the program continues to make it affordable for all Vermonters to invest in solar. ? The new rule shouldn’t financially penalize customers who retain their Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)– but rather find a reasonable way to reward customers who retain their RECs in Vermont. These customers provide a real benefit to Vermont, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change.

Thank you for considering concerns

Paul and Wendy Manganiello Norwich

Hi -

I am a member of Vermont Electric Co-op and wanted to write in support of their goals for a sustainable and fairly priced net metering program.

Jan Hilborn East Fairfield

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

134

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, MIKE WUERTHELE

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Sincerely, John Rosenblum Calais

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I'm an engineer with a lifetime interest in renewable energy. About 35 years ago I had plans to start a hydro power development consulting business in New England to encourage reconstruction of the once bustling industry. Then I discovered that power companies were not interested in purchasing power from small producers. There was no way to promote small hydro power development as a business.

After decades in other parts of the world I moved back to Vermont last year and was pleasantly surprised to discover that net metering is now possible. I immediately installed solar on my roof and am very pleased with the results. Absolutely trouble free production. Net metering makes it affordable to reduce my carbon footprint. Thanks for make it possible!

Sincerely,

Robert Yoder Rutland

135

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Hello; I’m writing these comments as a new citizen of Vermont. Our family moved here about 2 years ago from the metro-Boston area.

Why?

We sought a place with deeper connections to the outdoors, resilient communities and where those connections are valued, nurtured, and protected with good public policy.

Vermont’s commitment to obtaining 90% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050 and the solar energy policy to help get us achieve that goal helped draw us here. The growing solar sector this policy supports, creating thousands of jobs in Vermont, is what ultimately made my family’s move to Vermont possible and it will make it possible for more people like us to settle here.

Now, as a new homeowner, with our first child ready to enter kindergarten, we’re assessing solar for our future energy needs that include home heating and car charging - and to reduce our environmental impact. We want to do what’s right for the environment we moved here to enjoy, the places our children and grandchildren will inherit. And, this decision is made all the easier with clear-headed and predictable policy that makes going solar a “no brainer”.

Adding solar adoption roadblocks in the form of uncertainty regarding the value of solar or the potential for utilities to add discriminatory solar fees at some point in the future is a bad idea. Our economy and our planet needs people to adopt solar, and fast. Making solar more expensive is just bad policy. Solar financing is a long-term commitment and needs certainty and predictability. Potential utility fees that may or may not be applied have clouded our decision-making process.

I’ve personally helped over 60 Vermonters benefit from and support solar energy. I can say that the fair value they receive for the clean solar energy pouring off of their roofs back into the grid went a long way toward making it easy for them. Solar pays for itself - it reduces peak summer demand, reduces CO2 emissions, and has already made over $250 million in transmission upgrades unnecessary (according to VELCO’s statements in 2013).

Locally produced clean energy makes our communities and our state more resilient and democratic in the face of energy price uncertainty. It’s safe – have you ever heard of a “solar spill”? It happens every sunny day, and it’s a good thing.

No explosive gas pumped through buried pipes.

No explosive oil or gas trucked around slippery winter roads.

No explosive oil or gas rolling by the ton along aging railroad tracks.

Let’s keep safe and clean solar growing in Vermont, for us in the here and now and for those coming after us.

Kindly, Wayne Maceyka Hinesburg

136

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board:

As one of 1000+ existing customers in a community solar farm, I would like to express my concerns about two elements in the proposed Rule 5.100.

First is that the time period for net metering for both existing and new customers has been limited to 20 years, while the expected system life is more than 30 years. A longer duration makes it a better investment for regular folks to help build solar energy infrastructure, and it is part of the calculation that can help maintain the renewable energy industry and jobs.

The second is that Community Solar rate incentives for systems of 150 KW and less have been removed without any replacement incentives, which will again reduce the viability of community solar projects and lead to job loss.

Vermont has been a leader in this space, and with the ambitious State goals for renewable energy generation, we need to keep the momentum going.

Thanks for your time,

Edee L Edwards

May 10, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

My specific concerns are that the Board should keep the grid service fee out of the final rule. Also that the board keeps its commitment to the people who have already gone renewable. Please be crystal clear in all business.

Sincerely,

Kim Daniels Ferrisburgh

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

137

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Laura Tabachnick

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

138

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Annamarie Pluhar

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, CHRIS SAILER

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

139

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Eric Herminghausen

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years.

140

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Judy Greenberg

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, BERT HUGLE

Dear Public Service Board,

141

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Carrie Towle

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on

142

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Stewart or Kris McDermet

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Laurie Coursin

143

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller, and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems, counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering since new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community-sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all.

It is also important to remember that Community Solar arrays remain an important, and often the only, option for Vermonters who are unable to install individual solar arrays on their rooftops or on the ground on their property.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Sylvia Davatz

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

I was shocked and truly dismayed to hear that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of installing new Community Solar - essentially killing the future of Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

144

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems, with myself being among them, and are counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Sarah Waldo

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

145

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Carlton Palmer

Dear Public Service Board,

Sincerely, Sherrill Ellinger

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS THAT FOLKS WHO NET METER ARE, IN FACT, USING THE GRID. IT FOLLOWS THEN THAT THEY SHOULD SHARE SOME OF THE MAINTENANCE COST. IT ALSO SEEMS THAT DEEP POCKETED DEVELOPERS WHO NET-METER MAY BE TRYING TO USE OLD REGULATIONS TO PROFIT FROM THE RELATIONSHIP WITH VEC. PLEASE CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF NEW RULES ON COSTS TO VEC AND THEREFORE TO ME. THANK YOU, ED MCGILLICUDDY W. CHARLESTON

Dear Members of the Public Service Board,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule 5.100. I humbly offer my comments not only as an owner of solar panels in a community solar farm but also as a concerned Vermonter,

146

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 renewable energy advocate and small business owner. I will begin by saying that I am a small investor of 15 kW and will not pretend to offer any expertise on policy or complex economics.

In late 2015 I made the commitment as a small business owner to invest in community solar. I made this investment to take control of costs and support solar and renewable energy. This investment decision was based on the current rules that provided set economics. How else would one make this type of investment decision? This speaks directly to the proposed rules lack of grandfathering the rates of existing installed systems. I find it alarming that after making an investment based on existing rules that had set rates that these would not be honored. As a matter of integrity and doing the right thing these existing systems need to be grandfathered and the rates honored as long these systems are in service. A 20 year or other arbitrary time frame is neither fair nor practical.

My wife and I work full time and also operate a small business while trying to raise three young boys. We work hard but live modestly. I am speaking to the high cost of living in Vermont and the importance of economic development. Not only does solar with the right economics support the States renewable energy initiatives but also supports economic development and keeps families working. Please support working Vermonters that invest in Vermont and renewable energy.

I would like to finish by saying my family and business would be adversely affected by the lack of grandfathering existing systems and not honoring the current legislated rates by which we made our investment decision. We would like to see rules and policy decisions that support small suitably sited solar. Please allow homeowners, small business owners and reasonably sized and sited community solar farms to have the economics of their hard fought investments honored and supported and think about changes for these large megawatt systems from out of state investors. Please support existing small and community sized solar investments and consider reasonable policy and economics for future solar investments.

Thank you for consideration of these comments.

Respectfully, Jonathan Harries

Specifically I would like to request the following: 1) Please do no remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry. 2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency. Limiting this to 20

147

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Sincerely, Walter Poor 1091 Oxbow Road Pittsford

The revised net metering rules will play a major role in the success of Vermont's efforts to generate a large portion of Vermont's electricity from renewables. It is critical that the right balance between the needs of attaining and surpassing those goals and the rights and interests of the general public. Without that proper balance, renewables will loose the wide spread support that it currently holds politically and in the overall population of VT. That being said, attaining the goals set by the legislature for renewables is of highest importance. Vermont needs to continue to help set the pace for developing a "green" infrastructure in to do what we can to ensure that our children and each succeeding generation, have a chance to benefit from the "Vermont" life. Therefore it is critical that the new regulations: 1. Encourage investment in solar by clearly grandfathering whatever rules an individual or business commissioned their system under for a period of at least 10 years. 2. If a grid service fee is essential to universalize, it should be kept to the barest minimum amount. Creating more financial impediments for Vermont Electric Rate Payers will only serve to slow down or even halt the investments that are necessary to gain a substantial level of renewable electric generation. Please don't penalize those rate payers who had the wherewithal and the willingness to invest in solar. Thanks for listening, Howie Howie Michaelson NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer™ Sun Catcher, LLC Renewable Energy Systems Sales and Service VT Solar Electric Incentive Partner 802-272-0004

May 11, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I don't understand why the PSB is undertaking this effort to revise the net metering program. The only reason to do so would be to limit the amount of solar energy that could become available to the inhabitants of the state. If the professed goal of the state is to increase the percentage of renewables in the state's energy profile, why on earth is another arm of the same state contemplating finding ways to limit the growth of that percentage?

148

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

As I understand it, a grid service fee would prevent people with low incomes from getting involved with loval efforts to go solar. Proposing rates that will make it harder to build solar arrays, rather than easier, is a pretty dumb-ass way to go about increasing the amount of solar power in Vermont. Basically, it's hard to believe you guys are serious. Is this just your way of subverting the governor's efforts to make Vermont more sustainable?

Sincerely,

Lydia Spiter 734 Galaxy Hill Rd North Pomfret

To the Vermont Public Service Board, Please consider the effects the proposed Net Metering Rule 5.100 may have on the development of renewable energy here in our state. I know that is what you are empowered to do and I’m sure you take the task seriously, but I’m also sure that the perspective is different from where I stand. I am a small business owner and lifelong Vermonter. I was in the solar business in northern VT in the mid 70’s and experienced solar die the day Ronald Reagan was elected president and the few subsidies that were available for solar were discontinued. We have come a long way since then- the world has changed in many ways, not all for the good. Yes, solar and wind are still subsidized, but at a mere fraction of what fossil fuels are. I have watched the VT rebates go from 75 cents a watt to zero in 3 years. The people that call me and want to have me install solar power are concerned for the environment, concerned about climate change, concerned about the future of our planet. They want to do something positive to to help. Putting solar PV on your roof or in your yard is a big investment, and like any investment, people want to know that their money is being well spent. Changing the net metering rules, as proposed, will discourage people from investing in not only our energy future as Vermonters, but our future as humans. I am proud to be a Vermonter and be known for our progressive forward thinking policies. People I know who don’t live in Vermont are often commenting about how forward thinking we are here, how practical, how wise we are in our policy making as a state. I, am strongly encouraging you to do the following: 1) Set fair rates for projects that support the State’s comprehensive renewable energy goals. Customers should have access to more affordable community renewable projects. Eliminating the negative REC penalty would encourage Vermonters to generate and purchase renewable energy. 2) Allow customers to use their self-generated renewable energy over an 18 month time period to account for seasonal weather and home use shifts, transition periods before installation of efficient heat pumps, or utilization of electric vehicles, etc. 3) Encourage well-sited projects by reducing their permitting and hearing burdens. 4) Prohibit monopoly utilities from targeting renewable net-metered customers with new fees or other costly mandates (such as 3rd party audits) before choosing renewable energy. And lastly,

149

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

*Please don’t penalize people who have elected to keep their RECS instead of selling them.

Thank You, Eric Shenholm, Michele Ratté, and Anya Bredbeck

Eric Shenholm, Proprietor Michele Ratté, Manager Anya Bredback, Installer Saxtons River saxtonsriversolar.com

Dear Members of the Board:

VEC members want a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced. We are members of Vermont Electric Coop and have been pleased with the way the utility has been operated providing exceptional service and good value.

Recently we have been disappointed to learn that half of VEC's net metering capacity is being taken up by large scale, developer driven projects. This reduces opportunities for household rooftop net metering, creating a financial hardship for VEC and many Co-op members - including us. In addition, developer driven projects often result in the destruction of forest and farmland, which provide good carbon sinks against global warming. We ask you to consider this when developing renewable energy policies.

We need a grid in which everyone who uses the grid contributes to maintain the grid. Please make the system more sustainable by requiring those who are net metering to pay to maintain the grid. Right now, our family is paying the cost for grid maintenance,but those who net meter are not, even though they are using the grid!

Please also consider establishing policies in which pricing for net metering reflects market realities. Our Co-op leadership has informed us that:

150

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

We have participated in VEC's Annual Meeting each year for many years, and have found the leadership honest and forthright in the information which they provide to us. Further, it is our understanding that the mission of the Public Service Board is to serve all Vermont's citizens in a fair and equitable manner. As you consider revising your policies regarding renewable energy projects, please create a net-metering program that is sustainable and fairly priced.

Yours truly,

Mary and Bruce Barter

I understand that the Public Service Board is proposing changing the rules regarding net metering for community solar projects. I am writing to you to register my objection to any changes that would reduce or eliminate incentives for these projects. More than a thousand Vermonters, myself included, have invested in these projects, with the understanding that the tariffs that applied would make these investments cost-effective, and changing these rules now would severely undermine any hope of getting a reasonable return. I have to wonder whose interests will be served by the proposed changes. Certainly not the thousands of people whose jobs depend on community solar projects. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Vermonters whose air quality is improved by switching energy sources from fossil fuels to clean solar. Please reconsider these rule changes, and preserve incentives for community solar projects.

Sincerely, Oliver Brody Westminster West, Vermont

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on

151

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Matthias and Manuela Weiter/Malaszkiewicz

May 11, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am a current solar power user with Washington Electric. I resent having to pay a grid fee for going solar. I also believe it's only fair to grandfather families like ours that chose to go solar into the new guidelines the board is considering for net metering.

Your supportive consideration of these issues would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jeff Spiegel Corinth

May 11, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

I am very much in support of us doing whatever we can as a state to support and energize the opportunities for people to move to renewable energy sources. I utilize the net metering program myself and the state should be doing everything it can to support others doing so as well. Please do not add fees that make it more difficult For people to do this program.please also do not add other burdens or change the rules to make it for more difficult or more expensive for those who have already taken these steps. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Williams Putney

152

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Greetings, I apologize I do not have the docket number to offer to you.

I have heard that the PSB is considering limiting net metering not expanding it here in VT. I actually had someone from Rhode Island claim that the solar panels decrease a home value- I disagree. For an individual to take the power away from the centralized power producer, need I mention the recently closed Vernon reactor, and to diversify the power supplies in the state creates a greater opportunity for all in the state. As I am certain you are aware GMP has recently begun offering the Tesla® battery for home use. To limit net metering would certainly lead to a poor business decision on the part of GMP/ Gaz metro. Vermont is a national leader... let us continue this tradition by not limiting net metering.

Sincerely,

Gary Sachs Brattleboro

Regarding Net Metering rules, I don't think there should be a connection fee for renewable energy projects connecting to the grid. First of all, we should be encouraging LOCAL energy sources not hindering them.

$1B-$2B of Vermonters' hard earned money flows out of the state each year to pay for non-local energy! Any amount of that money we can keep in-state multiples its effect by circulating locally, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Making it harder for Vermonters to keep that money locally is not the way we should be heading. Secondly, locally produced energy stabilizes the energy cost for many years to come, helping to assure that our rates don't rise, saving us money in the long term.

Thirdly, energy from renewable sources addresses a global issue of our warming planet and the viability of our children and grandchildren to live on a hospitable planet.

Every kilowatt of energy from renewables reduces the effects of burning fossil fuels to get that energy reducing our carbon footprint and getting us closer to 90% renewables by 2050. This is your energy plan - you should be working to implement it!

Anonymous

Dear Public Service Board,

153

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry. 2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Debra and William McGinness Mt Holly

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

154

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, John Burt

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Joe and Jen Towle Newfane

Dear Members of the Public Service Board, We are writing to urge the public service board to abandon the draft net metering proposal, and return again to helping Vermonters use renewable energy. In recent years, more and more people have gone solar thus getting Vermont closer to its renewable energy goals. But your proposed changes threaten this. Here is a summary of our efforts and the effect your proposal will have on us. Periodically in the past, we researched getting solar panels; but the cost was prohibitive. Then four years ago, we learned about the federal and state incentives, and the net metering arrangement. This allowed us to afford solar panels. We were told that because we had a western facing roof, our panels would produce 25% less than panels on a southern facing roof. But, we were determined to get all of our electricity from our solar

155

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 panels, so made a number of energy efficient changes to our house. As a result, we reduced our energy consumption, but ended up producing more solar energy than we used. We did all this not because we wanted to make money producing solar power; but because we wanted to be responsible stewards of the environment. We never chose to take a cash refund from Green Mountain Power, even though we had well over a thousand dollars in credit. In fact, I’d called GMP a few times over the years asking if we could donate our surplus power to a needy family. At the time, they told me they did not have a mechanism in place to do that. So, rather than taking the money, we actually spent more money in order to use our solar power surplus and to reduce our use of fossil fuels (natural gas). We switched from a gas hot water heater to a heat pump hot water heater. But even with this investment, we still generated surplus electricity. Then, in late August of 2015, we switched from gas home heating to a heat pump home heating and air conditioning unit. Since last year was a mild winter, we can’t gauge accurately how much electricity the heat pump will demand during a more typical winter. However, in February we were shocked to receive a letter saying our solar credits were expiring! Right when we might need our excess solar credits, we will lose them! This change happened without notified us, and despite the agreement we had with Green Mountain Power and Sun Common, who assured us in 2012 that our credits would never expire, and we could take a cash refund at the end of each year. Frankly, we see the PSB’s net metering change as a betrayal of trust, and breaking a verbal contract. And the recent decision to provide us with only one month’s cash reimbursement for excess energy, with the rest of our surplus expiring month by month is still a betrayal. Agreements should be honored. And in breaking the agreement, Vermont’s public service board ends up punishing those of us who tried—at great expense—to do the right thing for our state and environment. It’s dumbfounding to think that an environmental state can propose such anti-renewable energy policies. As mentioned earlier, we made significant and costly changes to our house to use our surplus power, while still being energy efficient. We spent a considerable amount of money purchasing the heat pumps knowing that we had the solar credits to use for the electricity they used. Now, we may end up having to buy more electricity from GMP because you are taking away the surplus electricity our panels had generated! Recent changes to the net metering rules, and suggested future changes undermine not only our efforts, but the efforts of hundreds of other Vermonters. The upsurge of ordinary Vermonters installing solar panels on their roofs and properties or joining community solar arrays is because we are financially able to do so. By breaking faith with those who chose renewables, you set a bad example for others, who now may view switching to renewable power as a risky and uncertain proposition. For decades taxpayer money has subsidized large corporations, which enabled them to produce dirty fossil fuel while making huge profits and greatly contributing to climate change. Vermont should take the lead in reversing this distorted and dangerous arrangement. Corporations and large polluters should repay the taxpayers through subsidies to average citizens who want to save the planet by using renewable power sources. Now is the time to INCREASE incentives for individuals -- not take them away. Vermonters have shown that we are willing and even eager to switch to solar, but we need financial help. Hundreds of folks have gotten solar panels or joined a CSA. Thousands of renewable energy jobs were created. The momentum to do this has started and is building. It is incredibly sad that Vermont’s public service board is about to stop the progress that members of the public are making. What “public” is the public service board serving in these net metering proposals? We urge you to honor the commitments made to us, and enact regulations which financially reward the use of renewable energy sources. Please don’t stop Vermont’s renewable energy revolution!

Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon

156

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

South Burlington

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Phil and Katy Crane

May 11, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Net metering is a success story. I am writing to ask you to continue the net metering program. There is no incentive for homeowners and businesses to go solar if net metering is discontinued. Please make it crystal clear that net metering will continue and do not curtail this favorable activity in the final rule.

Sincerely,

Jessica Eisenhauer Williston

157

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board, I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100. It has come to my attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of installing new Community Solar - essentially killing the future of Community Solar in Vermont. This would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy. Specifically I would like to request the following: 1) Please do no remove existing Community Solar rate incentives without adding new incentives for systems of 150 KW and less. This is essential to maintaining economic viability of Community Solar in Vermont and to avoid major job loss in the Vermont Solar Industry. 2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all. Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Lucinda Bedard

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

158

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Micheal Fedoruk

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Gail Lilly

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100. Community Solar allows people who have a shady roof or don’t own their own home to invest in Vermont’s clean energy economy.

159

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Specifically, I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1,000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering, and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Eric Lineback Dummerston

Dear Public Service Board,

We are writing to voice our strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller, and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

It has come to our attention that the proposed rule 5.100 would result in a 50% increase in the cost of installing new Community Solar systems. This will essentially kill the future of Community Solar in Vermont. It will result in the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in the Vermont Solar Industry and end the prospect of Vermont being a leader in renewable energy.

Specifically we would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW Community Solar net metering to 20 years.

160

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

We (as well as over 1000 existing customers) invested in this system counting on MORE than 20 years of net metering credits as part of our economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in line with the integrity we would expect for appropriate grandfathering from a state agency. Since new systems such as ours are expected to last at least 30 years, limiting net metering to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods. It would add another blow to the viability of this industry.

We are proud to be living in a state that encourages its citizens to invest renewable energy. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar. We Vermonters have an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Peter & Linda Brophy Wilmington, Vermont Proud owners of solar panels in Vermont!

May 11, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Please maintain the existing conditions for net metering as we really need to continue expanding renewable energy development. A grid service fee, revising existing rate contracts and lower rates will greatly reduce if not eliminate expansion which is where we need to go. Many thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Wayne Nelson

Sincerely,

Wayne Nelson Burlington

161

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry. Vermont has the opportunity to be a leader in promoting community sized solar and has an obligation to future generations to do our part in promoting renewable energy. Please allow small Vermont community solar farms - and the small businesses of Vermont - to build a better future for us all. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Judith and Roy

Dear Public Service Board, The current revision of the proposed net metering rules attempt to incentivize rooftop systems over ground mounted systems. I am the solar manager at DC Energy Innovations and am responsible for talking to potential customers and helping them with the feasibility of their potential solar projects. I would like to provide you some real world information as to why the available capacity for commercial rooftop systems is far more limited than people not involved in the solar industry might realize.

These are the barriers to commercial rooftop systems which must be overcome to make a project happen. 1. The business occupying the building must own the building as the building owner who would pay for the system and electricity user who get the net metering credits on their bill must be the same. Otherwise, the landlord needs to become a seller of solar electricity to their tenants and/or renegotiate their lease to pay for their tenants' power. Not too many commercial landlords want to take this on. 2. A structural engineer must be able to certify that the roof has extra capacity for the weight of the solar. Especially, in the lower snow load areas of the state near Lake Champlain, where many of our commercial buildings are located, this is challenging. Many older buildings are not even rated for the snow load. The newer ones are often designed for utmost material efficiency to meet only snow and dead loads and no extra. In our experience, it is a minority of commercial rooftops that can pass this test. 3. Larger commercial buildings have flat roofs where mechanical equipment is typically located - air handlers, AC units, vents, etc. These reduce roof capacity. In addition, once the solar is installed, their locations cannot be easily changed. One of the largest Chittenden County landlords told me that was a reason he was not interested in installing solar on any of his buildings. If the tenants change, the new tenants might want to change rooftop equipment. Solar would make his building hard to rent. In conclusion, it is important, in order for VT to reach its renewable energy goals, that the rate offered ground mount systems be raised from what is proposed. Particularly, for community solar systems at 150KW or less. These projects offer homeowners and small businesses and municipalities the chance to secure their energy costs where they might not be able to otherwise. To make these projects work, with the many but small offtakers, the rates need to similar to rooftop systems.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Ben Gordesky Renewable Energy Manager DC Energy Innovations, Inc.

162

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Burlington

The PSB is proposing changes in the Renewable Energy Credits, apparently to protect Vermont from attempts by Massachusetts and NY to somehow steal our solar power and save the environment all by themselves. This is painfully misguided. We in Vermont are happy to provide milk to Massachusetts. Why can't we provide measures that save our environment as well? Remember that Vermont and Massachusetts share the very same atmosphere.

The original purpose of the REC legislation was that a utility could pay a bonus to homeowners to encourage them to install solar power, to meet its solar goals. This has been happening very successfully and we are ahead of projected goals.

But recently, attorneys and thinkers have decided that there is something morally or philosophically wrong with this program, this program that has led directly to 6,000 solar installations in Vermont, and indirectly to the bancruptcy of some of the largest coal companies in the U.S. (which is a very good thing).

The moral problem concerns "who gets the credit" for clean renewable solar power displacing fossil fuel. Specifically, if I install a solar system, providing most of the money and the rooftop, and a Massachusetts power utility pays me a bonus (RECs) to do so, then these attorneys and thinkers now state that I do not get credit for it, and that Vermont does not get credit for it, and by extension they believe that the solar system is not good as a result. This is patently absurd. I made the solar installation happen. It would not have happened if I did not do it. It is displacing fossil fuel. I care absolutely NOTHING for who "gets credit" for saving the earth. Fighting over "who gets the credit" for saving the earth is just as messed up as saying that "we" should not save the earth since "no one else" will do their share.

From a pragmatic policy viewpoint, we should be free to sell our RECs on an open market. GMP and out- of-state companies should be free to bid for our valuable contributions to the environment. We have the land. If solar energy is hard to understand, just think of milk. Do we worry about Massachusetts buying all our milk? No. We would be happy to produce more if they want more. Think "jobs, income". Does GMP need more solar credits? Let them out-bid Massachusetts. If they pay more, more will be built, and that is what we desperately need. A wise person said that it's amazing what you can get done if you stop worrying about who gets the credit.

Bill Christian, P.E. N. Bennington

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

163

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Maggie Smith

I strongly support moving to sustainable, non-fossil fuel generation of electricity, but would like the Public Service Board to ensure that all who use the electric distribution grid pay their fair share of the infrastructure costs of that grid. Timothy Budell Westford

To the members of the Public Service Board:

I am writing to express concern about the current revised draft of Proposed Rule 5.100 (as released in March) which does not adequately support consumers seeking to net meter renewable energy installations, nor in my view does it support Vermont's wider energy goals. We need to be supporting more renewable energy implementation at all levels of our energy infrastructure (residential, commercial, utility), not less. I believe this to be an urgent need for our society and culture, and to date Vermont has been one of the leading states on this issue. I would like to see Vermont continue to lead, by supporting a fair, equable and easy route for the implementation of net-metered renewables.

I grew up in Barnet, VT, went away for college, and came back to this state to work in its vibrant creative economy. I currently live in Burlington, but am actively exploring purchasing a home outside of the city. One of the factors in my house search is what utility service area my home would be located in, because I want to be able to have distributed-generation renewables on site, to match my power usage and feed extra power back into the grid at summer peak usage times. This alone requires keeping track of what specific utilites' differing policies and attitudes toward net metering are, and how much space they have in their respective "queues". It is disheartening to find that the forthcoming rule may discriminate against me no matter what utility service area I choose, whereas a neighboring house may be enjoying net-metered power from a system installed a year or two ago. If I do not buy a house, I will be seeking to push BED to build in-town community solar, or find a rental situation in a town where I can buy into a

164

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 cooperative solar farm, and support and enjoy group-net-metered power. Utility customers wanting to net meter should not be penalized for bringing a benefit to the grid and utility. People living further out on dirt roads, remote from village centers, are not required to pay more for their power than those living closer to power distribution centers, even though maintaining remote portions of the power grid is very expensive. The net-metering cost shift claimed by utilities as potentially affecting non-NM ratepayers is at this point purely hypothetical -- it doesn't exist. It therefore does not make sense to require all net metering customers to pay more than regular ratepayers and undergo uncertainty regarding their utility rates year over year; this will make planning for and financing renewable energy installations highly difficult, if not impossible. Stability is required long-term.

I also work for a renewable energy company, and the existence of my livelihood depends in large part on the final PSB rule issued in this matter. Vermont currently has a growing renewable energy economy, thanks in part to federal and state incentives, and also to the hard work and innovation of scores of local companies. It makes no sense to me to see us put the brakes on a system which is innovative and works, and to pull back from something which Vermonters have resoundingly said we want. Renewable energy is a public good. Vermont utilities currently have pulled the plug on net metering due to reaching 15% distributed generation (net metering) cap. Utilities will need to be part of determining how to get there, but I would prefer that we look toward small countries like Denmark, which between 1985 and 2010 achieved 70% distributed generation on its grid. We need this type of energy transition. We have the technology to do this; we just lack the gumption.

I encourage the PSB to keep in mind the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, the degree to which utilities did not want to implement it, and the formation and funding via federal loans of co-op utilities in order to implement its mandates. Its passage and implementation drastically changed the electricity landscape of the 20th century. We are now at similar inflection point.

With all of this in mind, I request that the PSB consider making the following changes to Proposed Rule 5.100:

1. Set fair rates for projects that support the State’s comprehensive renewable energy goals. Customers should have access to more affordable community renewable projects. Eliminating the negative REC penalty would encourage Vermonters to generate and purchase renewable energy. “Adjuster” rates should be certain for at least 15 years. 2. Allow customers to use their self-generated renewable energy over an 18 month time period to account for seasonal weather and home use shifts, transition periods before installation of efficient heat pumps, or utilization of electric vehicles, etc. 3. Encourage well-sited projects by reducing their permitting and hearing burdens. 4. Prohibit monopoly utilities from targeting renewable net-metered customers with new fees or other costly mandates (such as 3rd party audits) before choosing renewable energy.

With sincere thanks for your time and attention,

Meghan Dewald Burlington

Dear Members of the Board;

165

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

I read with great consternation the proposed changes to policy regarding renewable energy, particularly solar power, in Vermont. Please adopt the suggested recommendations from Renewable Energy Vermont.

I invested in a roof-mounted 10 kW system last year. It powers heat pumps which heat my home as well as my hot water, and it has allowed me to REMOVE MY OIL BOILER and TANK. I did this to put my money where my mouth has been in regard to renewable energy and the environment. But I also did it because it makes economic sense. The proposed shifts in policy put the economic fundamentals of my decision in jeopardy.

I don't have a lot of money to throw around. My solar system was paid by cashing in residual income- generating portfolio I had earned through my sales position, and believe me, it was hard-earned. Please do not shift the sands under the feet of Vermonters who struggle to live and work here in the midst of current economic conditions, which you will hopefully understand are extremely difficult.

Without resorting to personal attacks, I must say I am surprised and disappointed that the PSB of this state, which has been on the leading edge of transitioning to a sustainable energy portfolio, arguably setting a national precedent (Please see the New Yorker, June 29, 2015, "Power to the People" by Bill McKibben), considering these changes. These changes are right out of the playbook of utility companies that are trying to hold market share regardless of the environmental and social consequences, and their arguments simply do not hold water. But they hold sway in Florida, for example, where the legislature performs the industry's bidding to the extent that there is virtually no photovoltaic power generation in the sunshine state (Rolling Stone covered this). I respectfully ask that you reconsider the proposed rule changes regarding photovoltaic power in Vermont. Please do not go down the anachronistic fossil fuel road that has led, literally in Canada, to the world being set on fire.

Sincerely,

Tyler Austin

Dear Members of the Public Service Board,

You requested specific feedback on why a customer should be allowed to have net-metering credits from more than one array credited to their account. Under the current rules, there is a significant disincentive for people to purchase more solar panels than they need to meet their current demand. Customers who purchase more net-metering credits than they currently use must forfeit those credits if they go unused for more than 12 months

However, in the future if one of those customers buys an electric car, or installs a heat pump heating system, their electric usage could go up significantly. Or after 10 years, when the bonus adder goes away, their panels will no longer cover their electric bill. At that time, Community solar customers who have bought panels in an off-site solar farm might well want to purchase more solar panels to cover the difference. But if the field in which they purchased their solar panels has been sold out, then those customers cannot buy more solar – because they would have to purchase additional panels in a different field, which is prohibited under the current rules. Thus their need to be able to get net- metering credits generated from more than one array. all the best,

166

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Peter

"Don't get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It's just that I prefer fusion to fission. And it just so happens that there's an enormous fusion reactor safely banked about 93 million miles from us. — William McDonough

Peter Thurrell Soveren Solar

Good Morning ,

My husband and I attended the PSB meeting last week at Montpelier High School. We did not speak but do want to add our voice and support for continuing a strong net metering program in Vermont. Five years ago, before there were many affordable solar options we made the decision to commit and invest in solar. We had purchased a home on a hilltop in Williston and after an assessment , confirmed that we were indeed "98% perfect" for panels on our roof. We had an 8.14 system installed and since then have saved over 82,000 pounds of CO2 ! We did it because it was the right thing to do. We felt strongly about supporting the solar industry and contributing to the greater cause of bringing clean renewable energy to Vermont. It's been very gratifying to see how much the industry has grown and adapted since then. Solar can be obtained now by virtually anyone we wants to take part. And that's what's so great about living in our little state, so many people embrace and want to contribute to a cleaner environment and an energy independent Vermont! I was so impressed by the passionate voices I heard speaking at the meeting last week. If we are serious about the goal of becoming 90% energy independent we need to create a program that supports the small businesses that bring this technology to communities and rooftops. And we need to remove arbitrary fees and caps that discourage people from signing on. I am lucky to be grandfathered. Others will continue to make sacrifices to do this but it's essential they know there is a firm commitment and stability! With so much enthusiasm and support , this is the time to be casting a wide net.

I feel incredibly blessed to live in this beautiful state with people who are so committed to a cleaner environment and the common good. Vermont has a proud history of setting an example. Let's continue to do the right thing!

Thank you, Lisa Dwyer

To Whom It May Concern,

A few comments with regard to your proposed changes to Rule 5.100:

• GNM Caps: It is not clear to me why net metered projects are capped at 150 & 500 kW. Would it not be possible to take the cap off and allow a project to be as large as the utility's infrastructure would allow? This could enable multiple businesses to band together to build a joint solar array off-site where none could do it on their own site. • Value of Solar: Some states and utilities in America are moving towards a recompense strategy for net metered solar where the energy produced is recompensed according to a process known as the 'Value of Solar.' A formula is used that takes into account all of the monetary benefits that result in their

167

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 array, including avoided peak demand purchases, avoided greenhouse gas production, avoided new capacity construction costs, etc. Minnesota has spearheaded this technique, and the Institute for Local Self Reliance has written well about the strategy. • With regard to the grandfathering provision,or lack thereof, it seems to me that once an entity has recouped the cost of their investment, which has been as little as 4-6 years in VT (an astounding 20% ROI), they don't have a whole lot of room to complain about adjustments to the rules. The problem would be developing a rule that factors in payback periods. • With regard to REC's, I am sick and tired of companies and non-profit agencies saying they have 'gone solar' when the RECs to their arrays are being sold. This is classic double-dipping, in my opinion, and should be dealt with strictly. I ascribe part of the blame to the company/agency/person who bought into an array without understanding the details of what they were buying, but most of the blame to unscrupulous solar developers who are more than happy to let their clients go on thinking that they are going solar and helping to deal with climate change, or what have you. PLEASE deal with this, it gives the whole industry a bad name. • Adjusters: It seems to me that the adjusters you have proposed will substantially dampen solar energy development in Vermont. I am working with a client who has a brownfield site that has exposed ledge. It would be an ideal site for a large solar array, but the proposed adder schedule would not provide enough benefit to offset the additional cost of construction, specially if it has to be ≤500 kW.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Tad Montgomery

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods

168

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

- adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Alan Steinberg and Linda Sturgeon

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Tom Early

Daniel- Well said! Although I have a personal reluctance to dedicate so much acreage to visually repetitive solar panels in fields; I look forward to their practical integration in grazing and hopefully doubling with building roofing applications and various other mixed benefit circumstances (Such as rain shelter for drying cordwood and other agricultural products). When I travel elsewhere in the world, I especially admire working landscapes that benefit agriculture, nature, and the artful endeavors of local

169

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 people. I cannot expect to go to Holland without seeing windmills, and I miss coastal scenes of fish (and nets) drying on racks in the sun when I go to the N,E. coast. Perhaps the key missing element is the presence of human, livestock, or nature's interaction to make Vermont visitors and residents view this working countryside and say: "AH Vermont, it's wonderful how it all works together!" -Steve Voorhees

I am in favor of your proposed draft for Rule 5.100. It represents a reasonable effort at clearing up the confused status regarding the ownership of RECs associated with net-metered solar energy systems. Your draft of the rules is perhaps more convoluted than it needs to be, but even such convoluted rules are better than the prevailing absence of rules, which has allowed various shady operators to confuse and defraud the credulous Vermont public.

Hans C. Ohanian

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Jamie Margolis

170

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Dear Public Service Board,

I am writing in opposition to the changes to net metering. We are at a critical juncture and every effort should be made to make going solar easier and more affordable for homeowners.

I am just now in the process of going solar and could fit an array that generates 9,000 kWh on my roof, although we only use about 3,500 kWh a year. If the systems were set up to make it easy for me to share or sell my credits, without a monthly rolling loss looming over me, I would do it. But knowing the complexity and difficulty of doing so, and the potential financial loss for my household, I will not do it.

I am installing the smallest array to cover our own use. This doesn't make sense in this day and age. 50 percent of homes in South Burlington cannot go solar because of orientation or tree cover. We need to make the most of the roofs that can generate. This can only be done by your support.

We have had decades of funding and subsidizing dirty energy that has harmed our environment. It is time to make renewable energy as cost effective as possible and Vermont should be a leader in this.

Best regards, Patty Tashiro BPI Certified Energy Auditor Fruitfull Energy

Public Service Board,

I am writing to voice my strong support for Community Solar installations in Vermont of 150 KW and smaller and to ask you to change some specific proposed language in Rule 5.100.

Specifically I would like to request the following:

2) Please fix the language of Rule 5.100 so that it does not limit EXISTING and NEW solar Community Solar net metering to 20 years. Over 1000 existing customers invested in these systems counting on more than 20 years of net metering credits as part of their economic decision to invest. To change that now is not in-line with the integrity we would expect from a state agency for appropriate grandfathering and new systems are expected to last at least 30 years. Limiting this to 20 years will further hurt the economics of Community Solar payback periods - adding another blow to the viability of this industry.

171

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Tom Early

Dear Ms. Whitney, Mr. Eric Filkowski, and Mr. Copans, and all at VT DPS

I continue to read with dismay of the proposed changes, in revisions to PSB 5.100 rules and I project the spectacle of Vermont losing the status as a leader in renewable energy jobs, and solar installations. You will have also ensured that larger corporations and energy companies can operate without regard for the environment or the welfare of the planet, and that more money will flow out of state for RECs and power purchases.

By making the rules more complex, and the incentives both lower and harder to understand, you have effectively shot our own collective foot. You will seal the fate of Vermonters; by preventing us from reaching the goal of 75 percent by 2032 and 100% renewable energy by 2045 – effectively not meeting the Renewable Energy Portfolio that was mandated by the legislature.

These very Vermonters rely on your sound judgment to increase the adoption of renewable energy, yet the actions in your proposed document will have the alarmingly opposite effect of killing off a sector of the Solar Industry in Vermont, namely Community Solar.

As with the lost opportunity to purchase and control the hydro installations in Southern VT, will we simply regulate away the idea of generating all the power we need in state? Will we look the other way as many other states embrace higher incentives, and more cooperation in the implementation of these Renewable energy projects? Will we make Community solar economically un-viable in Vermont?

I hope not! But it looks like that is exactly what your plan is.

Community solar is the perfect vehicle for Vermonters to support and invest in renewable clean locally produced power, without saddling themselves with the responsibility of cleaning maintenance or insurance. Community solar installations are the ideal size, in keeping with Vermont values and can be deployed and removed relatively quickly.

Your proposed rate structure would kill off this sector of the industry and harm a number of companies to the point of actually putting some of them out of business. Hundreds of jobs would be lost, at a time when we cannot afford to lose a single job. Furthermore, these companies rely on a business model that builds on continued project development. In contract with each projects lifespan (a minimum of 30 years), lowering incentive rates every few years has the negative effect of raising the cost to end users, changing the value or ROI and potentially putting people out of work, or worse, forcing the closure of companies that can no longer sell panels and or the removal of these projects.

Why would you consider rules that do that?

172

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

While many residents in MA (and other states) enjoy the sale of RECS on their small 4kW Solar, and are also enjoying healthy incentives, Vermonters can not. We continue to purchase power from Seabrook Nuclear, and Hydro Quebec. We continue to see incentives go away, and to add insult to injury, now you are starting to add complex adders and subtractions based on location and site suitability. How much extra time will it take for you make a judgment on Uncle Fred’s Solar Farm project with these new criteria in place?

Please let the townspeople and existing regulatory bodies decide the fate of appropriately sized installations. Please roll back the incentive level to 6 cents per kWh on all projects up to 500kw. Please streamline the process for permitting and site selection, adding more local control to the process. Please grandfather in all existing permitted projects for the life of the project, so investments are not stranded. Please require GMP to not sunset the credits after 1 year, this effectively gives GMP money that is not due to them.

Thanks for your attention to this critically important issue.

Daniel Hoviss e-Solutions Putney Vermont

Greetings,

We are a GMP residential electricity customer with a CPG and net-metering contract for a 4kw solar- electric array.

We made our substantial investment in net-metered clean renewable solar in the interest of adding this type of energy production capacity to the grid as an alternative to other carbon-intensive or environmentally damaging power sources.

We feel strongly that the State should proceed with any net-metering rule changes only in a way that honors the terms and spirit of the CPG it has issued us and others like us and the net-metering contracts we entered into based on the expectations that the State created. The State should not craft or enable rate structure changes or impositions of net-metering or grid-use fees or tariffs that would undermine our assumptions and planning for pay-back on the investment we have made. To do otherwise would be a serious exhibition of bad faith and would dangerously damage the credibility and reputation of the State in future policy initiatives we Vermonters would want our government to take.

Lenny Gerardi & Lauren Jarvi St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

May 12, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

173

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100

Please be sure the 'grid service fee' stays out of the final rule, also be crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people (like my family) who have already gone renewable & that Vermont isn't changing the rules we're operating under and, lastly, I believe there should be incentives to those who cannot build solar on their own property but want to join a group solar array or other renewable energy product.

Sincerely,

Timothy Allen Winooski, VT 05404-1563

May 12, 2016

Vermont Public Service Board

Clean energy such as solar is the future of our state, our nation and our planet. In fact, my husband and I have solar on our roof and we are so pleased with this decision for our family and community.

I urge you to finalize net metering rules that encourage more solar projects within Vermont. Specifically, the final rules should NOT include a grid service fee, as that will drive down participation by homeowners and rate payers. The Board should crystal clear that Vermont is keeping its commitment to people who have already gone renewable and isn't changing the rules we're operating under.

Finally, I want to address group solar arrays. Folks who don't have the ability go solar on their own homes and property must have a the option of coming together with others in their communities to access this resource. Doing so is an example of two things that make Vermont so special: a value of community and a vision for a sustainable future. The final net metering rules should encourage group solar arrays, whether they are in open fields or covering parking lots.

Thank you for your work for clean energy, and for your consideration of these thoughts.

Sincerely,

Mia Moore Montpelier

Members of the Board:

174

Public Comments Received via E-mail Regarding the March 30, 2016, Proposed Rule 5.100 pending legislation relative to solar implementation across Vermont will have, if not legislated responsibly, devastating effects upon Vermont’s economy, Vermont’s legacy and renewable energy on a national level. The rest of the country is watching….

We can encourage renewable development, job growth, savings to tax payers and rate payers while minimizing the aesthetic implications of solar with proper siting regulations on a State wide level. Specifically the bill should include: -projects located on top of, adjoining or on parcels abutting municipal buildings, schools and 501-c entities as both sites and off-takers of the electricity generated should be encouraged via a bonus in the net metering rate or the allowed size of the array. -net metering projects located on agricultural land, working farms, should be allowed and incentivized through a bonus density allowing a larger array up to 150%. -net metering projects which result in removing phosphorous from the Lake Champlain basin should be allowed and incentivized through a bonus density development allowing a larger array up to 150%. -projects that keep the investment tax credits within Vermont should be allowed a 20% bonus density and the credits should be allowed a carry forward to be applied to estate taxes; solar is creating jobs and it should also be utilized to keep tax dollars in Vermont. -all projects should be required to have 60% screening as depicted on a “moving” digital representation. -all projects should be minimum setback from property lines and roadways as depicted in the municipal plan for the applicable town. -Net metering prices should be the residential rate within the applicable utility territory. The net metering rates provided years ago were reflective of a much more expensive development price for solar than today’s rates. Solar now makes economic sense for all parties on both sides of the solar tables.

However, while the economics of solar encourage more and more solar development the “recs” are a commodity negotiated based upon parameters and fundamentals out of the control of both Vermont developers and the Public Service Board. Any pricing models or legislations that are predicated upon or involve utilizing commodity pricing as an underlying instrument are at best sophomoric and defy proven economic theory. The recommendations of the Public Service Board are well intentioned but more harmful, in fact deadly, to a solar industry that has become important to Vermonters on so many levels. I encourage the PSB, a group that has done yeoman’s work these past few years towards orchestrating a reliable distributed grid, stabilizing long term utility prices and encouraging a healthier environment, to revoke it's recent recommendations. I encourage the House and Senate to reconsider their recent efforts as well. A unified policy that encourages a sustainable mission, promotes a distributed grid, minimizes expenses to rate payers and stimulates investment is easily acheivable. Let’s return Vermont to the forefront of responsible leadership on a global level.

Gregg Beldock

Updated 5/13/16 @ 2:45 PM

175