Legitalk:

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Good morning. Would everybody please find a seat? We are gonna be starting the hearing because we have to. Alright. If you can't be rule y, we're gonna have to get the capitol police in here. Come on, settle down. Clearly, I have no juice in this room. Everybody got a whistle? This is a very bad sign, people. If we can't even get together okay. Good. Thank you. Good morning. This is the public hearing of the Energy and Technology Committee. If you're in the wrong room, there's still time to leave. I am state representative Jonathan Steinberg, the house chair of the Energy and Technology Committee. Welcome to what I like to call solar day. I mean, we don't have solar day every year. Obviously, we'll talk about other things as well, but this is something that is important to me that, we have some existing programs out there. We have a lot of challenges on the national front and here's our opportunity to discuss what we might do in this sphere of renewable energy that works for the state of Connecticut. And on that note, I understand my co chair will be here shortly, but I'm glad to hand off to my esteemed ranking member, representative Mara. Good morning.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you so much. Let's get started. Welcome to solar day.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative Mara. And I see is re re senator Fazio available? I'm not sure I see him yet.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: He said he was here.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: That's right. He was here earlier. Alright. I could keep talking until he gets back, but probably not. And senator Needleman will be be here shortly. So given the fact that we do have a lot of people here, and I'm sure everybody wants their chance to speak before the sun goes down again, we will start right in. The first hour, we will be emphasizing generally elected officials and, people from the executive branch, but we're starting off with an exception. We're going to start with a, with a quasi, Brian Garcia from the Connecticut green bank. And, is Brian here?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: I'm, online. Representative Steinberg, good morning.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Wonderful. Glad to have you kick us off today. Please proceed.

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Excellent. Members of the Energy and Technology Committee, good morning. My name is Brian Garcia. I am president and CEO of the Connecticut Green Bank. I'm joined today by Sergio Carrillo, who oversees the Energy Storage Solutions program on behalf of the Green Bank. Our apologies as we can't be there in person with you this morning and our appreciation for allowing us to testify online. The Green Bank recently surpassed $3,000,000,000 in total investment mobilized into Connecticut's green economy. What the state decided to do next matters to both sustain and continue the growth of the clean energy economy, including a workforce consisting of over 47,000 jobs and a gross state product of $7,000,000,000 We testified today in support of House Bill number five three four zero. We would like to acknowledge that PURA ran a comprehensive process that sought stakeholder feedback on the r res, n res, and SCUF. Having worked for the state for over two decades, I can unequivocally state that there has never been such a thorough process of stakeholder engagement leading to a study of this kind. Within section one, the Green Bank agrees with the central finding of the successor study, which is reflected in the proposed bill. Solar plus storage is the future of clean energy in Connecticut as it will provide more benefits to participating families and all rate payers. In 2021, Public Act 21 dash 48 was passed on a nearly unanimous bipartisan basis. Within section two of that act was the ability for multifamily affordable housing properties to be able to participate in and have their renters benefit from the ARES program. As senator Marr and representative Hughes are aware, in addition to renters residing within multifamily affordable housing, we have senior assisted living centers, those who live in apartment buildings, and others who could benefit from the ARES. We would ask the committee to consider allowing all renters through their property owners to be able to participate in the successor program

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: of the

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: ARES. Within section two of the NRES, the Green Bank would like to focus its comments on the need to improve interconnection. The successor study stresses the importance of interconnection reform. The Green Bank would suggest that the committee consider incentivizing the EDCs to prioritize interconnection through performance based regulation and projects that lower electricity rates for all rate payers. And within the proposed bill at lines two zero three to two zero four, emphasizing the priority of paired solar plus storage in delivering rate payer benefits be included. Interconnection reforms are central to ensuring that projects in development are ultimately invested in and deployed to realize participant, rate payer, and societal benefits. On the successor program to SCF in section three, the Green Bank would like to focus its comments on two considerations for the Committee, including first, in addition to focusing subscriber credits on low income customers broadly and those customers with arrearages specifically, the Green Bank would suggest that such subscribers be required to participate in the Home Energy Solutions income eligible program administered by the EDCs. And second, fuel cells are a base load clean energy resource that are manufactured in Connecticut. They enable resilience through local microgrids and powering of critical facilities, can operate in CHP mode, and they reduce local air pollution that causes public health problems. The committee should consider allowing fuel cells back into SCF to provide more low income benefits. The Green Bank has provided the committee with other considerations within our written testimony. We appreciate committee staff. Thank you, Abigail, for helping us get set up this morning, and we look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Brian. Let's start off with a little bit of level setting. The Green Bank is actively involved with, facilitating solar projects here in the state. How would you assess the current status of, solar here in the state of Connecticut at this time, particularly given the changes at the federal level?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Great question. As many in the industry know, with the end of the investment tax credits for solar and the maximum safe harboring efforts that happened at the end of last year, Developers were focused on getting projects within the federal ITCQ to safe harbor them. I know my team was working the last two months overtime to ensure that the projects we were working on for schools, municipalities, the state were safe harbor so that we could enable that 30% investment tax credit to flow to those projects and, therefore, further reduce the cost of energy coming from those systems. I think the industry is still trying to work through, this, significant transition at the federal level. So it's important that in the context of what we do here in Connecticut, be there as a stabilizing force, to help them transition through this period of time. I guess the other thing I would add is within the context of battery storage, that investment tax credit has been extended. So as we look at this proposed bill and the importance of battery storage in combination with solar PV. It's the right time, for Connecticut, to continue to, put these two technologies together so that we can maximize benefits to everyone who's doing it, including ratepayers. So it's a transitionary period most definitely for the industry, and, Connecticut can help stabilize that, by, continuing, these programs.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So to your point, once, the industry sort of gets through the enlarged queue because of the expiration of the ITC, that there will be challenges to the industry here in the state of Connecticut, without, as many projects that would have come forward if the federal program still existed. And I guess what I'm asking is what would happen if we were to follow suit and to allow our, solar incentives to expire in 2028?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: There's definitely going to be more attrition in terms of projects that have been working themselves through the system as a result of the federal policy decisions. This year, we've got foreign entities of concern, fiat provisions that the industry is going to have to deal with. In terms of Connecticut policy, if we were to pull back our efforts, that would further lead to greater attrition. Many developers have spent a lot of time and effort with end use customers across the state to develop projects. And they're at various stages of getting those projects deployed. So I think we can, in fact, here in Connecticut, be a stabilizing force for preventing further attrition.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: One last question, then I'll hand off. You brought up a subject that we've talked about a lot in recent years, which is interconnections, which, you know, are clearly the key to moving forward a lot of projects. We've, talked a bit about how long it takes to get an interconnection depending on the nature of the project, the predictability of the process. What do you see as, steps we can take? And obviously we, we've looked at what Pure has recommended. What do you see that Connecticut can do to, enhance the, the reliability and the, quick, quick and appropriate approvals, of interconnections. You made mention of a performance based regimen. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Great. Yeah. Interconnection is going to be a significant barrier for us to successfully achieve the policy objectives that we're after. Pura's established an interconnection working group that has worked very hard to try to figure out all the nuance of advancing interconnection. I'm sure many developers are being challenged with it. I know from the perspective of our energy storage solutions program, we have some 150 megawatts of commercial storage that are at various stages within that interconnection queue. And if these projects get deployed, they're gonna reduce electric rates for all rate payers. So it's important that they be moved forward so that those projects can get developed. We propose two concepts that we think can be done. One is sending a signal through the performance based regulation statute, you know, put a principle in there that incentivizes the utilities to prioritize projects that reduce electric rates. And we think distributed energy resources, specifically those that are paired with battery storage that can be actively dispatched during peak periods, can reduce electric rates. So, send a signal to them through performance based regulation statutorily. That

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: will send

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: a signal to PURA as they're establishing that program so that incentives can be better aligned. The second thing was to express priority, and I think we can do that within the proposed bill here at certain lines that solar and storage is important, because it will lead to the reduction of electric rates, by reducing peak demand. So you can send signals, to not only our EDC colleagues, but also PURA and others who are, taking, legislation that's been passed and putting it into programs and incentives. So those were two things that we provided in our written testimony.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I'll I'll hand it off to representative Foster.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thank you so much for joining us here today, and your testimony on this bill. I, I I wanna sort of piggyback on the conversation that rep Steinberg had about the interconnection queue. Rep Steinberg had about the interconnection queue. One of my long standing, I feel unresolved questions and concerns about the future of grid scale solar development is, that we don't really have a good state level strategy to prioritize or consider, what availability of interconnection capacity is left for future development. And in a community like mine that bears the brunt of the state's solar siting, When we have local businesses, industry, school, agricultural buildings who are looking to do large solar projects, the interconnection capacity has already been consumed by developments that are generating energy either for other areas in the state or sometimes out of the state. And I'm curious if you think that there's an opportunity within this conversation as we talk about the interconnection queue to consider a way to leave a remaining balance of the total percentage available at a given point in time, available to municipalities for use in either by the municipal buildings. Sometimes we have designation for SAM, the state agricultural or municipal, buildings. I I think that it is one of the ways that we're not really considering the sort of fairness of the way that we're citing solar to not consider, the balance in the interconnection queue and how much is left. Because we do have this problem and it's in the residential market but it's also in the commercial industrial too that at your first in, all the benefits, you benefit for everyone's rate payer benefits that they've contributed to grid capacity. And if you're the last person to come in for a development, you are paying the balance of the interconnection capacity that you need for that investment, which really prices out local businesses in a district like mine time and time again. And I did learn today, that there's a federal equivalent of this program for cluster approval of projects where those projects could be shared. Thank you for that education. And so I'm wondering if we can replicate that on the state level where we're approving projects in cluster and considering shared capacity that is, you know, remaining between municipalities and, local businesses, and maybe if there's external interest that wanna be cited. Is that something that you think there's room or capacity to to add to this bill at this moment in time?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: I guess what I would say, representative Foster, is that we've got to we we've got to make efforts to improve the interconnection process. And and if those principles that you've outlined there are important and it sounds like they are, then put them into statute as principals. I I was suggesting, prioritization of projects that reduce electric rates as a priority, moving those projects up in the queue, for example. But, I think setting those principles, whatever they may be, for interconnection should give guidance to, PURA, should give guidance to the siting council, should give guidance to, you know, others who are implementing, programs, to to ensure that they're delivering on the expectations of the legislature.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: And I have one additional question. Obviously, as we enact policy, we share our intent, with incentive and disincentive of the type of projects that have potential benefit. And I have long hoped and aspired to imagine a time where we are prioritizing and incentivizing the kinds of solar programs that, use impervious surfaces, brownfields, rooftop, and are using existing infrastructure in those spaces as sort of a benefit or prioritized over open spaces and core forest and prime soil farmland. And from what I can tell, I don't know that we have the substantive enough policy levers in this program as it stands to do that. So I'm curious if you have recommendations for ways that we can enact a policy lever like that.

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Great. I I think, you know, through the PURA processes and within the successor study, is evidence around different adders and trying to get the market incentivized to focus on brownfields, not greenfields, carports, and the like. I feel like more work could be done. Maybe maybe it's not adders that that that is what's incentivizing the development. I I don't know. But, definitely, the legislature sending signals on what it would like to see, and and giving PURA the tools through a regulatory process to to determine what levers make sense to encourage that kind of development is is important. You see some of that language in the successor study. But, again, the market, right, is the market, and we're trying to get it to focus in certain areas that may be underserved or directing the siting of those systems in certain places where there are opportunities. Sending those signals through policy matters and trying to get the markets to then respond is the task at hand.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I appreciate that. I think we still have room to go to make sure that we've enacted a policy lever that moves us towards this needle. And in districts like mine, where we host 20 to 30%, depending on the town in my district that you're looking at of the state's whole solar capacity, and most of those arrays are paying de minimis taxes to the community, having consideration for, like, maintaining a local benefit, protecting open space, but also ensuring, of course, that we have affordable energy generation being built, but that it's not single towns bearing the majority of that burden. So I appreciate your suggestions, and I think it sounds like we still have a little bit of work to do to make sure that we're pulling the appropriate policy lever here. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Winter.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for being with us, Brian. I wanted to ask you about the, proposal to remove move away from the reverse auction for the NRES program and what the Green Bank has seen in terms of project attrition, and how to balance that with assertions that others have made that moving away from the reverse auction could cause costs for NRES to increase?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Yeah. It's a great question. The successor study really tries to lean into that. And I think the, what PURA has laid out in terms of, you know, a standard offer ready, first in standard offer, is a way to try to deal with the attrition that may come with projects bidding in at a lower rate or, you know, everyone's trying to compete against everybody sharpening their pencils. So, they bid in at a price and things change. Inflation hits. Investment tax credits disappear. You know, a number of things can occur. You're in you're in an interconnection queue longer than you anticipate. So attrition can really affect those projects that come through a reverse auction. So I feel like the process or the findings of the study really make a lot of sense. One of our suggestions in terms of trying to prevent attrition with time as you know, a standard offer may change is is for PURA to have multiple steps, some sort of a declining incentive block structure where it says in the standard offer, here's what we're offering in year one, two, and three. And those those incentives come down over time. So, you're letting the market know what a floor price could be over time if you haven't brought your projects in. So, that may be somewhat in the middle of what's being proposed or what came from the successor study in the current reverse auction structure. Now, ultimately, I think what we're all after is maximizing the amount of, you know, zero emission solar production per dollar of rate payer incentive, is what I think we're after. And attrition in in a queue isn't good for anybody. We wanna see those projects get done, investment happening, and, rate payers and participants benefiting.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: And do you feel like, we're capable of administer administratively setting, that standard offer rate?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Yeah. I I yeah, I do. You know, when the Green Bank administered the residential solar investment program, we we ran a declining incentive block structure. The key there was you had to send the market a signal way ahead as to how those incentives were were going to be priced over time. You had to collect a lot of information. You know, we we wanted to know what the installed costs were because we were trying to help support a maturing industry. So there are some data things that may be required to set that price. But I think that price could be set. That offer rate could be set. The challenge will be that many, you know, commercial customers are all on different rate classes. So so how that price gets set and adjusted that way will be a challenge. But I think it can be done.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: And another key focus of the successor study was the export rate for, especially for residential projects And the idea that we should be looking at projects which are going to deliver, you know, a net positive benefit to non participants. Do you have advice for us on where that export rate should be set?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Interesting. I I, you know, I I feel like in the PURA study, it's less than the retail rate, right, but more than the the the supply of energy, I think is where they they landed. Ultimately, what we want, is less and less export, so that the participant is producing and consuming themselves. They're producing it. They're storing it. They're using it when when they need it, the the stored power, and, therefore, they get the their their retail rate. That that's the goal. That's the future. In terms of setting that rate in between, you know, I'm one for process. I think getting many people in a room, industry, utilities, regulators, policymakers with good data, can help set that rate. And, and ultimately, the policy principle that I think we operate by is what you all set in statute, which is something around, fostering the sustained orderly development of the local solar and or storage industry. Right? Like, that's the policy signal you're sending, to the, the program developers that there needs to be, you know, a reasonable rate of return, in the context of setting, those rates so that you get participants interested. I I I don't have a a specific answer for you, representative winners, but it's it's greater than that that supply rate, and it's less than the retail rate. And when and I think we can get there because the ITC for battery storage still exists, and, we can by pairing solar and storage, we can realize more rate payer benefits by dispatching that storage power when the system needs it the most.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thanks. And then you'd advocated for including fuel cells in the successor program. What, what would that look like? Would that be capped in some way in terms of dollars or megawatts, or are there other constraints that you'd put on fuel cells if they were included in the system?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Yeah. It's a great question because fuel cells were originally included within the MRES and the SCAF programs. However, those programs had megawatt caps as opposed to what's being proposed here as budgetary caps. Fuel cells, because they produce they're 90% efficient as opposed to, say, 15% efficient solar panels, they produce more power per megawatt installed. So, we'd have to think about the budget cap in the context of what's currently proposed in the statute, because fuel cells would chew up a lot of that budget cap, given that they produce six times more power on a megawatt basis. But what we saw in the shared clean energy facilities program were several fuel cell projects that not only produce clean energy, but as a result of the shared clean energy facilities program produced six times more benefits to low to moderate income families through those subscriber benefits. So they can play an important role there too.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Another question for you. Actually, we'll go to senator Fazio first, then I'll ask my question.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: A true gentleman. I I was a little I, I appreciate your testimony. I was a little surprised to hear, your your support for setting, for pure setting a price rather than having a reverse auction. You know, we're we're very cognizant of limiting costs on consumers. And, our reverse auction competitive bid process, obviously, seems more likely to drive down costs within reason. So, I wondered if you could expand on, whether you have concerns about, going to a price setting system rather than, a reverse auction, you know, how much concern it gives you about raising cost to consumers?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Yeah. It's a great question. My concern is around if we look at the data in the successor study, and maybe this is a question for our EDC colleagues in the market. But if you look at the data in the successor study around the NRES program and the SCF program, you see that there are you know, the the legislature established megawatt caps. You see that there are approved projects pretty close to those caps. But if you looked at the deployed projects, I think it's somewhere between 10 to 15% of those applications that were approved are actually installed in in in the ground delivering benefits. So to me, that's a concern. You know, projects that I agree with you. If you can get the least cost project in, you wanna maximize the amount of kilowatt hours produced at the lowest possible incentive. But if those projects are dropping out of queue because, you know, things change, maybe you impose a greater, you know, application fee or something to to get projects further on. But I think that's what what Pure is trying to do here is to say, do you have the permit, you know, permit for the site? Do you have interconnection? Are you further along? So that you can actually get deployed and installed. Reverse auctions make sense. But I I I question I wonder how much of those projects that have been approved are actually gonna be deployed. And if they're not deployed, then they're not meeting the legislative intent of the program.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: I mean, if the main consideration is just to deploy megawatts, I mean, you could set a really high price. But then consumers are gonna, be paying, a a very fat public benefits charge for it. And and I think previously, you mentioned that we we do want to minimize the cost per kilowatt hour that we're doing any of these programs at. So, you know, if the industry can't, you know, get the bolts in the ground, you know, it you know, I understand that it might be disappointing to some, but, you know, if that's the main consideration rather than cost efficiency for consumers, then you could just set a pretty high price and and get an enormous deployment, as we all know. So, again, that that's that's where I become concerned. Mhmm. You know, and I'll let you respond to that and then I'll give my time back to the chairman.

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Great. Yeah. What I was suggesting was somewhere in the middle. I think we can get there by having a declining incentive block. So so I'm not proposing setting a high price. I'm I'm saying send a signal to the market around an appropriate price that declines over time. So so we're trying to get the market reliance on incentives down. Right? We want these these projects to to be deployed, generating kilowatt hours of benefits to to many parties, but we don't want them continuously on these programs. So a declining incentive block structure, I think, is kind of in the middle, here of of, a reverse auction and a standard offer.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, senator. One last question for you, Brian. You made mention on a couple of occasions about seeing what we can do to address, low income rate payers. Obviously this speaks to the heart of the affordability crisis that we're all experiencing. You made mention of it, you know, in the context of solar and storage, how can that be a solution for people in environmental justice communities or low income communities? You know, obviously this is a pathway to get them out of sort of the cycle of, arrearages, if they can control, if they have some agency in managing their own, electric generation and usage. Is this a, a practical pathway for us to address, the need in lower income communities?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Yeah. So so I think in section three, what what you're prioritizing there makes a lot of sense in in saying that subscribers underneath staff should be prioritized to low income families and specifically those with arrearages. That's great. We want that. But how can we go further to help them? Well, we can have them in the HESI program provide services to them to further reduce their energy consumption. Right? So to provide more services to them, that's what we were we were suggesting in the context of of SCF. In the context of the ARES, we are seeing as a result of section two of Public Act twenty one forty eight, a more multifamily affordable housing properties, putting solar in storage, more recently, on-site, and that will result in a reduction of energy costs for those tenants. So that is working. It's taken a couple years to get going. That's working. And I think we provided in our testimony, you know, let's just make sure we're we're clear with definitions because a lot has happened. We don't wanna disrupt that as we make this transition from the current to the successor.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. And, yeah, I I agree that, it's one among many tools we might may have to, reduce the burden, on low income, rate payers. Are there other questions? If not, thank you for for going first. We appreciate it. We got we covered a lot of ground.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Mister chair?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I'm sorry, representative Baumgartner. I I missed you. You jumped in late.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: No. Don't don't apologize at all. And, Brian, it's great to see you. Just wanna thank you and, the Green Bank for all of the, support, your agency has provided our community, in in particular, on the solar map, plus, proposal for our high school, that would tie in, battery storage with, solar at, Groton's, high school. So I wanna appreciate, again, appreciate your, continued support. And, just quickly in in your testimony, you noted, some of the interconnection challenges, you know, remain to be some of the, barriers, again, to, distributed energy deployment in our state and and specifically, within our, you know, the community I represent. And, you know, we're seeing situations where, you know, the projects that combined, solar and battery storage, which we know, you know, deliver great value to the great ratepayers. The our school district anticipates to see a savings by going the route of tying in battery storage. And the the reality is, you know, these are constrained by project. I, you know, I wouldn't say they're constrained by the project economics, but by the actual physical infrastructure as representative Foster, so wonderfully articulated. You know, it's constrained by the feeder capacity limitations, for example, at least in the context of our, local infrastructure in Groton and, in in some of the interconnection classifications. And so as we design, successor programs in the future, you know, under under the bill as as, it's outlined, you know, what policy tools or or regulatory challenges, you know, should the legislature, consider, to ensure that, you know, these projects are are not prevented from moving forward due to interconnection barriers at the distribution level?

[Bryan Garcia (President & CEO, Connecticut Green Bank)]: Thank you, representative Baumgartner, for that question. I think over the course of the day, you'll hear from the industry. And, you know, I'd invite many of them to express the challenges of interconnection to getting projects done. There's no single silver bullet here. It's a very difficult problem to address. So, what we were suggesting in our written testimony were a couple things. The first one, you know, I learned in business school, you know, anytime you're trying to get management to to change or or move in a certain direction, the first thing you do is incentivize them financially to do it. So so using the performance based regulation, was was a way of of doing that. And then the second one is, you know, in in statute, as you are you know, and as you've done in Public Act twenty one fifty three, an act concerning battery storage, you set principles in section two that said, we want rate payers to benefit from battery storage, not just the participants. And and what did that do? PURA then, required a rate payer impact measure as part of the program, which means the benefits have to exceed the cost. And when they do, rate payer bills come down. So you can send principles, goals, objectives in statute that allow those who are trying to implement or set up structures to implement to be guided by that and prioritize that. You know, you don't wanna leave any ambiguity. You know, clearly articulate those principles you wanna see, reducing electric rates as an example, and those processes will then result in those, those objectives being met.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you for that, Brian. And I I should note that, again, it's been a privilege and a pleasure working with, your office very closely and our our school district on this project, as well as Eversource, working through some of these, interconnection challenges and remain very hopeful that, you know, this project, will get over the finish line along with all the, wonderful projects that are proposed in the, solar map plus program, for round two. Again, that could not have happened without the hard work of this, a great committee and collaboration of all the members of this committee. So, again, if we can, move the needle and continue support and renewable energy, but also ensuring we can reduce cost to rate payers in our communities as a whole. I think it's a no brainer, especially when we're in the eleventh hour now. You know, trying to leverage all the federal tax credits as you've articulated. So again, thank you for your leadership, Brian. Always great to see you. And, mister chair, thank you so much for the opportunity to ask a few questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Seeing no further questions or comments, Brian, thank you. We'll be talking some more, with regard to your testimony going forward, but thank you. We will move on next to commissioner Katie Dykes of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Welcome.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Good morning. Katie Dykes from DEEP. Delighted to be with the committee and also to be joined by our Deputy Commissioner, Andy Frank. Deep is, appreciative of, the opportunity to testify today. We have submitted, written testimony, supporting, House Bill five three three six on an act concerning advanced nuclear energy. We think that this bill, continues the great momentum, here, that the the legislature has, initiated over several years and, towards supporting, the development of of new nuclear. We see other states, in in the region, following in Connecticut's, footsteps and considering lifting moratoriums and that sort of thing. The cooperation among our, states in the region on this topic has, is continuing to accelerate. And we are now participants, through, the, National Association of State Energy Offices, in what's called the First Movers Initiative, which is a national, initiative of of states that are looking to develop, nuclear. We're participating in as an observer state. And through that, it's become very clear, for those states that are, a little ahead of us, in the new nuclear effort on that workforce constraints are, a significant, focus. And so we appreciate, this, this legislation, taking taking that on, and looking to, increase, understanding of what measures may be needed, to support the, the development of of a workforce that can, help attract investment in new new nuclear, in the years ahead. We also, have, you know, raised some, support, extensive, written testimony, on House Bill five, three, four zero. Appreciate all the, dialogue already in this committee hearing related to this act concerning renewable power generation. So we you know appreciate on the really thoughtful work that PURA has done on, the successor study. We, you know, offered a number of different points in our, written, testimony. Overall, we think, as the legislature contemplates how to balance, providing, you know, for continued success of deployment of behind the meter resources that, with the need to ensure affordability of our electric bills. We think, you know, we'd be happy to dialogue with the with the committee about ways to provide for some budget certainty for these expenditures going forward on these programs, as they are a growing part of the public benefits charge. We also, I think, feel you know, to the, the back and forth with the Green Bank, that, you know, Connecticut has had a lot of success in in supporting, you know, cheaper, cleaner, more reliable over the years, by leveraging competition. And, and so we do think that, there are ways, that we can continue to, utilize competition to set to, procure these resources, at at the best price. It provides the best value for all rate payers, as opposed to moving to administratively determined, pricing, or trying to avoid that. And also that it's really important to center, in development of any administrative, pricing. It's important to center the value to, the grid, the value to rate payers, as opposed to, prioritizing, setting tariff, tariff rates based on, a guaranteed, return for, for developers. So there's a lot of detail in our, our testimony, but we're happy to, be part of the conversation, on this important bill today and appreciate the legislature, raising it. And, and, and, to be brief, I won't summarize all of our other, written testimony, on five three three seven or five three four zero, but, glad to take any questions that the committee may have.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, commissioner. Let's start off with nuclear as you did. A couple years ago, we actually put aside some money to, help municipalities explore the possibility of taking on nuclear. How's that program, been so far?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Really appreciate that question. So I applaud the the legislature in authorizing that funding and that program because it really adopts a community first approach to siting. We think it's really, really important for the consideration of siting new nuclear to make sure that there's community consent and ground up of support for development. That's a sort of nationally recognized best practice. As part of our work on developing this nuclear site readiness program. Deep has launched a series of stakeholder workshops and we have held two out of six of them so far. And we appreciate we've had some legislators, participating in those workshops. The first two, you know, the the the goal of these workshops was, we realized before, trying to get input on the design of this, program to where we could allocate this $5,000,000, to, to communities to explore new nuclear development. We felt it was gonna be important to increase the level of information and understanding among communities across the state about the current technologies that are available, the latest information in terms of safety and security and environmental impact, And and just to make sure that we were, you know, really informing everyone, bringing in experts because there's so much that has evolved and changed in the nuclear industry since the last time that Connecticut, you know, was, in a dialogue with communities about siting and hosting new nuclear, which was decades ago. So those, workshops have been well attended. And and, and after the conclusion of those workshops, we expect to then, issue their request for information on the design of the the funding program. And very important, to see that in our, approach to this funding, we want to, this is funding to help, provide technical assistance to communities that may wanna get further information and understanding and exploration of of whether nuclear may be right for them. You know, we wanna start meet communities where they are. And, and it may be, you know, providing funding to help them with further exploration before even getting to, site development or, you know, a more specific site, you know, early permanent, early site permitting a best practice that other states, have been advancing.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You mentioned other states. There's perhaps a bit of a gold rush going on to across the country, the nuclear as the panacea. And you also, you know, mentioned in the context of other states, Connecticut is not in this alone per se, though we were for a long time in the past. What are the more the reasonable projections or expectations of nuclear in new England, let alone in Connecticut, in the coming years?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Well, so we have, you know, we haven't identified a specific gigawatt target, for example. Although I'll note that many of the states that have been, you know, around us, for example, governor Hochul had set a gigawatt target. And then in her recent state of the state, she just upped that to five gigawatts. As I talked to my counterparts in states like Kentucky and Missouri and Utah and They have established gigawatt targets as well. But you'll notice that, you know, we have not seen deployments occurring, you know, I mean, we're we're still there's still some significant challenges even for those states with those who've announced those targets, to, you know, getting to breaking ground and and and seeing new projects moving forward. And the biggest one, is this challenge of, cost overruns and the sense that the first mover, is you know, the first, developers of these projects, will probably see some of the highest prices, for, developing those first reactors because of all the learnings that come with being first. And so, and then as more projects are deployed, we expect that the cost is going to come down. So our goal is, of course, you know, it's kind of a good thing not to be the first one, because we could avoid some of those, those high costs associated with being first. But somebody has to go first. And so I think that's the goal of this, first movers initiative and and frankly, also, federal legislation like the ARC Act, which has been introduced, to hopefully unlock federal funding to, to cover some of the cost overruns associated with with, some of those initial deployments. That's gonna be really, really important to, to help get those first projects moving forward. So other jurisdictions that may be coming, a little behind, which is where we I would expect, Connecticut or New England would be, will be assured that, that there will be a project pipeline, and, an affordable new nuclear, deployment opportunities for us in the future. But I will also state that, it's very difficult to, and, you know, consider Connecticut, backstopping a new nuclear, project alone. And and, you know, we built eight, I think, eight units, back in the day or there was, you know, initiatives on that in New England, in the eighties and so on. And those were all built by multi utility consortia here in the region. So we have such a positive experience in recent years of joining with our sister states on coordinated procurements. We have one, on the street right now to with that five states are participating in for, that existing nuclear can bid into. So that, muscle memory and that that that practice of coordinated procurement, I think it's going to be something that we'll need to look, you know, leverage if we're gonna be successful in being able to support the investment in a in a new nuclear facility in New England because of the significant cost involved and and the significant regional benefits involved in these types of deployments.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I have other questions, but since we're sort of on nuclear, I'm gonna go to senator Niemann followed by representative Mara, and then we'll see how it goes from there.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Good morning. And I do apologize to the committee for being a little bit late. Thank you for testifying. And I just want to welcome you, Andy, as the new deputy commissioner. I think it would be wise for every committee member to get familiar. Andy's got a deep well of experience and knowledge in this field and as does most of the team all of the team that exists at deep. I guess I wanna sort of do a little bit of a victory lap for a moment, because back in 2019, when we lifted the nuclear moratorium, you know, in the first step of several, it was a little more controversial. There wasn't a bandwagon of lots of people wanting to do this at this point. There was still some resistance to any new nuclear or any conversation about nuclear. So in, this way and in so many others, we've really sort of led the charge between this committee, between the legislature, the governor. I think that that it's a first step. That was the first step on the long road. And the road is still long. I don't think that the road is a panacea, nor do I think the road is that cheap. But it is worth exploring. I do hope somewhere in there, because these are grid scale assets that ISO New England or some consortium as we've done here, even with Millstone, plays a part in moving nuclear new nuclear energy forward. So thank you for sticking with it. It was not a topic that was all that well received in 2019. But I think we saw the writing on the wall that we need to move ahead with an all of the above strategy. Even though initially it was sort of what can we do to enhance capacity at Millstone, it sort of expanded and the times changed. SMRs, you know, may yet have their day. I don't think they're having their day quite yet. And and I don't think, as I said, that they're going to be very inexpensive. I think the cost of the energy is going to be higher than some people think it will be. I don't know how it's going to compare with all other forms of energy. But it's good energy as long as we can keep people safe that have these things in their community. So I applaud your coming to us about the grant program and figuring out a way to move ahead with, talking to the towns that would wanna do this. I know we would all look forward to having, new SMR in our backyards. Raise your hand if you want one. I mean, I've heard it all from we're gonna bury him, you know, outside, and they're gonna be in the ground at every transmission point. It's like, that's probably not the way this is gonna be built out. There are challenges to it. But it is a low cost fuel alternative, high cost capital alternative. As the people of Georgia found out, they have to be very, very careful because unlike, you know, maybe in China where they're building a lot of new nuclear at a very, very low price, I'm not so sure that they're putting in all the safety measures that we would put in. And one of the things about nuclear that's always important is it's great energy. It's reliable energy. But I think CNN is doing a thing about, this weekend, about Chernobyl. Failure is not an option. Right? Failure is not an option. So all the precautions that need to be taken have to be taken here. And, you know, that was really it. There's a lot of work to be done here. I think the numbers that I'm hearing in my head, the timeline is 2035. And I think that although we need to have a vision that far out, we absolutely need to have a vision between now and 2035. And all of our plans for a stable grid have sort of been thrown into turmoil at this point. And this winter, if we've seen anything about this winter, we need to be thinking short, medium, and long term about energy policy. This winter with the weather that we've seen was really kind of an environmental tragedy in some regard. I would not have wanted to have lived next to the power plants that were burning oil for weeks at a time. So, anyway, thank you for the work that you're doing. We have a lot of other things, and I know that there are other people who wanna speak.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And how are my good senator? The winner is not over yet. So we could still get more. Representative Mara followed by representative Jensen.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you so much, mister chair. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. I appreciate your outreach on this. I'm sure, from what I've heard, your videos on nuclear has been well received, and I think that's needed. I talked to a group of college students who still have all the bad images of nuclear, so it's important that we move people to facts and data. Without saying who or where, have you thought about areas that would be good for nuclear? And then and then Darienne. We've got an island over there we just bought, might be great. So have you, and also have you had discussions with the surrounding states on combining capital resources for that and maybe you can talk about that just a little bit. Great.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: So, to your first question, no. When the legislature last year, when you modified the state's moratorium on new nuclear power facilities, beyond Millstone, right, the Millstone site, you'd lifted the moratorium on that in 2022. The legislature, did that by allowing Connecticut municipalities to opt in, to hosting advanced nuclear technologies through a municipal referendum or a resolution of a municipality's legislative body. So we're really, you know, at deep. We're very, very focused on just trying to ensure we can have an open sort of, you know, information first, information focused process to help communities understand everything that might be involved so that we can really enable that sort of ground up discussion to occur and and and keep the bar as low as possible so that municipalities can really bring their questions and and stakeholders can, you know, bring their curiosity and and we can really try to, leverage all the expertise that we have at the department and and bring in national experts so people can really try to get their arms around, what is involved, today. And, of course, you know, we have, municipal leaders in Waterford in that area who, have a lot of experience with, with hosting a nuclear facility and and all of the tax revenue that comes along with that, of course, on those community benefits. And we have an amazing nuclear workforce in this state as well, when you think about, you know, electric boat and all the other, you know, industry, and expertise. Within our department, I also wanna just, appreciate, you know, when the legislature, passed, Public Act eleven eighty and it brought together environment and energy under one roof, you know, we're getting the benefit of of that multidisciplinary expertise because we have, the radiation safety team working hand in hand with our energy policy team as well. And so you know that expertise from the radiation safety side, I think, is really, really valuable, in helping to guide these discussions. And, and we've also, streamlined, you know, the the agreement state, framework, that helped to ensure that on the NRC, you could delegate, a lot of the responsibilities for licensing and other activities, has also enhanced, our expertise and our our capabilities here within DEEP. The other issue that you raised is terms of other states in the region supporting capital, right, the capital investment. And so, that's something that we're actively, you know, thinking about. Of course, we're we're, like, really taking all of our, the knowledge that we have. We've been running grid scale procure procurements for grid scale resources at deep since 2013. And so, you know, leveraging all of our knowledge and expertise with respect to how to support investment in highly capital intensive resources that have long lead times for development and how to do so in a way that doesn't burden Connecticut's rate payers, with an outside share of cost relative to regional benefits provided. That's something that we have, you know, been thinking about a lot and, and, and our experience on in terms of committed, coordinated procurements across multiple states, but also really, there's a lot of analytical work that we're doing right now that we hope to put out in a white paper in a few months, looking across state and federal jurisdictional options that could help facilitate some of this, you know, more effective, more efficient, regional, investment. And so that's something, we're thinking about. And we're also watching closely legislation in other states. So, for example, New Hampshire, is also the host of a nuclear facility, the Seabrook Nuclear Facility. And I know governor Ayotte, has made it a new nuclear a priority, and there's legislation moving, in her state. And so, you know, that, is also something we're keeping a close eye on is how these conversations are, evolving in state capitals and legislatures, elsewhere in the region.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Jensen. Alright.

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: Thank you, mister chairman. And thank you as always for your insightful testimony before us. So first, I just wanna be clear that what we're talking about today are what's called fourth generation nuclear power, not third generation. My understanding is the third generation. Two were started, one was completed, and neither was really very successful. So we are talking about this new fourth generation. Correct?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. Do you wanna speak to it? Yeah.

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Yeah. I I'm not sure that You

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: should probably introduce yourself. Yes. Sorry.

[Emma Cimino (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP Environmental Quality)]: Hello. Emma Cimino, deputy commissioner of the environmental quality branch at deep, which includes the radiation safety team that the commissioner just referenced. We're not limited in the types of technology we can look at through through the sort of statutory directive. I think there's a lot of interest in in new nuclear SMRs, fusion, things like that, but we're not limiting ourselves in these conversations.

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: Alright. Thank thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. So my question then really is about what's the realistic timeline we're looking at for these new generations, right? I know Senator Needleman mentioned 2035, but what does that mean? I mean, you mentioned that the first one is is gonna be the most difficult. Alright? So when when do you think that a first one may be started? How long do you think it would take to come online? And when would further ones realistically be in production?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Right. Does 2035 sound fast to you? Because it sounds fast to me.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I see. But but that's okay. Because in energy land, right, especially for, you know, complex large facilities like this. You know, these types of development timelines can take a decade or more. Mhmm. We are seeing right now a lot of activity related to hyperscalers and other, you know, development occurring nationally. I think the progress of other regions, other, entities developing new nuclear is really, really informative to what the timeline might be for, development here in our region, because, again, the first mover right the more we can see other projects getting deployed that means that that will the learnings and the cost reductions associated with deployment will be something we'll be able to take advantage of here in the region. With respect to New England's needs, of course, we have, you know, as we have been working with the ISO New England, it's the mid 2030s where we start to see that we are gonna face, you know, more significant shortfalls in terms of generation. And so, so that time frame for the mid 2030s and onward is really kind of the target, where we need to, you know, think about whether nuclear could be, possible by that time or whether it may be further into the future. But that will depend on actions that we take, you know, today. So so while it may seem like a long time from now, we have to get, you know, now is when we have to get started. And the key issues to that we need to focus on are, you know, identifying the right investment mechanism to have regionally shared contribution towards new nuclear. Part of that is ensuring that we have other states in New England that are also see new nuclear as as, a resource that we wanna try to pursue, and engaging these conversations with communities to see if there's interest in development of new nuclear. And it doesn't just have to be here in Connecticut. Right? It may be, you know, any cited anywhere in New England, it can it can, deliver power that could benefit, us in the region. But we're certainly looking at that. I will say in the nearest term, of course, we know that, the Millstone facility may have the potential for, what you call an upgrade or, like, a modest increase in their, their output. And we may see, you know, something like that, we hit in the RFP that I mentioned, that is, underway at the moment. Those bids will be coming in, you know, later this month.

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: Alright. Thank you. And mister chair with your permission, so what what I heard in 2035, we still may be evaluating these these systems. Is that right? I mean

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: If we don't take action now, that might be where we are. But I guess what I'm saying is, first, you know, we need to the steps that we're taking now will help move us forward in in this process, which can take many years. First we need to identify investment mechanism we need to ensure that there's multi state interest in pursuing that. Then we would move towards you know are there sites where, communities wish to host this type of facility? We need to, you know, we move towards, you know, procurement, bringing developers in, understanding what the cost of these new facilities would be, if that pencils for for us in the region, of course. And then, you know, beyond that is, like, permitting, exciting construction, deployment, you know, coming online. That is a long, long journey. But, and a lot of it, as I mentioned, is also dependent on, the success of, those, you know, other states and regions that are looking to deploy new nuclear, and and overcome some of those first first mover, first cost issues. So so it is a long journey, but we have to start somewhere. Right? Because we will need new power sources particularly as we get later into the next decade. Is that helpful?

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: Yes. It is. Thank you. So, you know, I've I've seen the marketing from some of these, companies that are developing, and they all look great. Don't don't get me wrong. Mhmm. And I I think that this could really be a significant part of our future energy source. Alright? I'm just wondering, you know, how far down the road are we really? Right? Do we do we have a timeline that's developed all the way to deployment or are we still just in the beginning stages?

[Eunice Mahler (Member of the public)]: Mhmm.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. I guess it'd be a great I'm happy to follow-up with you on that particular question. We, you know, we perhaps it may be helpful for, for us to consider, you know, other states have been doing, plans to look at this whole deployment you know time timeline and timeframe. There's legislation pending in some other states to request those types of plans. We have not developed one so specifically you know here for Connecticut But, you know, we are these initial steps that we're taking on identifying this investment mechanism, engaging communities to determine if there's willingness to cite, you know, new nuclear, engaging at the federal level and with other states to determine how do we address this cost overrun risk issue. Right. Those are I view as some of these initial steps that we need to take as and then from there a timeline could get clearer. But, but happy to to follow-up with you to think through how we can meet the the needs and the interest of the committee, on ensuring that these steps are are are laid out and and understood from a time frame perspective.

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: Alright. Well, thank you. Yeah. No. Fully supportive in these first steps. Clearly that this is the way forward, but just, you know, wondering how far out we've looked. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Mhmm.

[David Emberling (Citizens’ Climate Lobby)]: Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I think we're all curious. I hope you for sooner than better. Representative Baumgartner followed by Representative Piscopo.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you mister chair and great to see you commissioner. We missed you in the environment committee yesterday but you were well represented by your.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I think I was not missed at all because I watched our deputies do a terrific job but I was sorry not to be there.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Yes. It's great to see you nonetheless and appreciate your advocacy for a very important piece of our energy mix here in Connecticut. Certainly as far as employment goes in our corner of the state in Southeastern Connecticut, one of our premier employers, Millstone Power Plant, generating 33% of our power needs in our state. That's a third. And it ought to be growing because we do have a need for, baseload power, as we all know. And, you, earlier, in your testimony, you referenced, some of the workforce challenges that many of the states, that are exploring additional nuclear capacity are experiencing. And I think here in Connecticut, we actually have a unique opportunity in that we already have existing partnerships with higher education, specifically, Three Rivers that has had a long standing relationship with Millstone, Stone, actually sending some of their graduates through an associate's program directly to Millstone to become technicians, of course. And these are salaries that are ranging between 80 and a $100,000. And, again, we have the tools to teach these young people. Representative Mara joked that there are many students that may not be interested in it, and I would argue the opposite is happening in our corner in the state. So can you explain how we are positioned to, really seize this moment and also leverage the existing programs and grow it so we can have a bona fide, nuclear, program here in Connecticut?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. Sure. It it we are really proud of that partnership and the work at Three Rivers. I think it's as I've, you know, participated in the First Movers Initiative and talked with other states, you know, not all the states that are, you know, pursuing new nuclear have existing nuclear facilities in their states already. And so, that provides us a comparative advantage, I think, that we do have this strong nuclear workforce and this base to build on. And, and and I think that there are also additional when you think about new nuclear construction, it goes beyond nuclear engineering, to think about, you know, very large, very complex, construction, projects. You know, there's there you know, I think this study and this analysis will help us to look at building on that cornerstone of of nuclear engineers and nuclear, technicians and and employees. How do we ensure that we would have the rest of the the workforce picture needed, to be able to cost effectively develop new nuclear in our state and in our region.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: And lastly, just some of the siting, I shouldn't say challenges but when we're dealing with siting for example and asking the question well who wants a nuclear power plant in your backyard. You did articulate of course that there is a precedent for it here in Connecticut. We've had many communities that have had a nuclear power plants in the past that have since been decommissioned. But, Waterford, two units obviously are still operational for, fifty years. I would note, you attended the, fiftieth year anniversary with the governor and, many of the, leadership of the environment of the Energy Committee as well. But again, those units are aging, and we will have to look at, ultimately, making additional investments to ensure that we are, continuing to, produce enough power to, keep the lights on here in our state. So, any thoughts on that?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. Absolutely agree. And I think I think, you know, the fiftieth anniversary celebration was a great time to reflect on how important it was that Connecticut took the steps to prevent the premature retirement of the Millstone facility, you know, back in 2019 and and that contract, through these very high priced, the the this, you know, through winter storm burn and the really cold weather that we've been having. I think this is maybe one of the most expensive months in ISO New England history. And and that contract that we have in place with Millstone that kept it from retiring, made sure that we had reliable power during that cold weather. And we have, you know, it's providing a bit of a hedge against some of that price volatility that's been occurring in our market. So, we're really that was great celebration. We do have that RFP underway right now. Because of the legislation, that you all passed two years ago, all that requires that any new contract that we would do to extend, with Millstone or with Seabrook, we have a contract with them as well, has to be joined by at least two other states. And we have four other states, that have joined in this RFP. And I I think that reflects, how the region has really come around to value, this nuclear resource. So, so that's really important. And, and I I think that, you know, we'll see where that that RFP goes. But ultimately, it's that kind of regional appreciation of the importance of nuclear that I think has shifted quite a bit over the last several years and bodes well for, you know, being able to explore this as a resource, you know, going forward.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you for your testimony, commissioner. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Piscopo.

[Rep. John Piscopo]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, commissioner, for being here. Appreciate your testimony. On senate on house bill five three four o, can you help me understand the intent of of the tariffs that that are you gonna be used to substitute our renewable programs? I I'm not a well, section basically, section three, four, five with the, you know, the the use of these tariffs and a better understanding because I I always thought that the tariffs were put into place to, as a kind of a compromise between the, the distributor, our utilities, and, and the people that actually have the the the system on their house or business. And it was kind of a way to get, a payment, like, almost a compromise payment for for them and, for both of them. And and, I'm not sure of the use of the of the tariffs in this in this, in this bill, sections three through five. Can can you help me better understand that?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Sure. So, so this bill, you know, would extend the, these programs that PURA administers to provide for compensation to customers who cite, you know, distributed generation, solar primarily, that you know, benefits those customers by helping them lower their bills, but also benefits all rate payers. You know, we can see that every day, in the ISO New England market that, the, they now are forecasting and you can see it on their app. There's a lot of distributed solar that's been deployed across the region and every day that's helping to reduce the amount of conventional and more expensive generation that needs to be, dispatched, in order to meet our our, our needs. So so that these, programs have been in place for many years, and they've been reauthorized from time to time and they provide for, compensation to, to developers and to, to the the, you know, the the customers who are hosting this, this generation, reflecting that, you know, the benefit that we all get from reducing, you know, those customers reducing their demand on-site. And I think the key, you know, these programs are going to be, you know, sunsetting next year. So it's really up to the legislature to, to determine, how these programs, should be, extended. The, PURA has has prepared this study that's, for successor programs. We think that there's, you know, we DEEP supports, the the the insight, the general, you know, direction of the PURA solar successor, tariff study. It aims to align the tariff compensation with the value that these systems are providing to the grid, including moving solar energy generation to hours of need using energy storage. And so, we think that, you know, there's a lot of really positive recommendations that are that are in that study. Generally, you know, I think our, our our comments and our written testimony are just, offered as, you know, suggestions, around this bill, about ways to, extract even more value from these resources for the dollars that are invested. We are, supportive of of extending these programs, because we continue to see value in having distributed generation, supported in the state.

[Rep. John Piscopo]: Thank you. I appreciate the suggestions you have in the bill. I'm worried about where the is this well let me ask is this a growth in a public benefit? I mean is it going to be more more funds that have to back this up, from the rate payer?

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: Mhmm.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: So, the cost of these programs is recovered in the public benefits charge, to, you know, significant extent. And, like many parts of the public benefits charge, we know that, you know, those dollars that are recovered in the public benefits charge to support these programs, help to achieve savings on other parts of the bill. And so that means, you know, reducing the cost of, of supply, to the extent that this distributed generation reduces the amount of of other, power plants that the ice in New England has to turn on that are, you know, may cost more to supply our needs. It also can avoid the need to build out, transmission and it can provide for some distribution system benefits. So that's always something, you know, to weigh in terms of, you know, the investments that are supported through the public benefits charge compared to the benefits and the savings that provides on other parts of the bill. But yes, the cost of these programs are, you know, recovered in the public benefits charge. And so I think, you know, generally, we support, you know, a deep the extension of the program. I think we have or these programs, we do, we do provide for some suggestions in our testimony, about ways to get even more value, for the rate payer dollars that are, invested through these programs in the public benefits charge. And we also might suggest, you know, setting a general, a target sort of, annual budget perhaps for these programs just to, ensure that they can, you know, there could be some, cost transparent or or you know a little bit more predictability in terms of what the cost of these programs will be you know on the public benefits charge several of these programs that are in in in in effect today do have caps on them but not all. And so it may be helpful you know to think about just you know what the total cost and what the total budget might be for these types of programs. But that's something that you know we'd be happy to explore with the committee. But overall we are we are supportive of extending the programs.

[Rep. John Piscopo]: Thank you. And and and last question, mister mister chairman. I I appreciate your words on section six, agro agrivoltaics cells. I I ever since the first comprehensive energy strategy plan, I've always been worried to meet our renewable goals that we were gonna just take too much farmland in our forest. I I questioned you on that years ago on that same concern of mine. And and it and it remains a concern. I see you you've included the Department of Agriculture in and and that's really appreciated. Mhmm. Your forestry people, because because you and I have spoke about how beautiful our forests are. Is is there is there enough influence with the Department of Agriculture, your Department of Forestry on the siting council for future decisions to try and curb this trend we're seeing of losing our orchards, farmland, forests to solar?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. So, you know, deep is, I mean, through through that collaboration with DOAG, you know, and and our seat on the siting council, of course, we, we try to do everything that we can to make sure that, we're minimizing some of these, trade offs and some of these impacts to core for us to prime agricultural soils. And, you know, we have also developed, what we call the CREST tool, which is now a GIS, tool that developers can utilize to help identify suitable sites for solar development that are near interconnection points and where they can try to minimize conflicts some of our other land use priorities around protecting forests and farms. You know, we, we'd be glad to work with the committee on I mean, again, Connecticut is a really dense state. We're the fourth densest, you know, by population state in the country. So it the there are you know, it's very easy to encounter some of these challenges with respect to siting because developers need to find sites, that are affordable in terms of cost per acre, right, for deployment. And that can all often put their, you know, create, make make farmland, you know, an attractive, place to develop relative to other sites in the state. So and and again, you know, that seeking out those affordable sites to develop means that they can bid more competitively and the solar will be cheaper. So the ratepayer cost, right, of the solar will be lower. So those are the things that we have to balance, in terms of, where we try to, you know, strike, how we strike that balance between protecting, for those land use, needs and, and and achieving affordable development. But we're happy to work with the committee. We were glad to see, you know, this, this focus on agrivoltaics. We work very well, with with commissioner Horvart and his team, and, but there's a lot that we've learned over the years of doing this. And certainly, we could dialogue with the committee on more things that we can try to incorporate into the process to help to strike that right balance.

[Rep. John Piscopo]: Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Representative. Senator Fazio followed by representative Foster.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your testimony, commissioner. It was, very thoughtful. First, I noticed in your testimony that you would prefer to see a reverse auction, in the procurement, for the new, solar programs, rather than administrative price setting. Can you talk about what potential added costs would be, entailed if we had an administrative price setting system and maybe if any other states have gone down that path and, how much higher price subsidy cost, they've absorbed, in the process.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: The latter question, I don't know offhand, but we could certainly come back to the committee with some of that information. I just have always been, you know, and I'm thinking back to Commissioner Estee when he, you know, was at deep and and, you know, working with the legislature on the LREC CREC program and some of these others, when we some of these programs were first started. I mean, competition has always been sort of in the DNA of Connecticut's approach to securing these, these resources when we're talking about, you know, commercial scale. And, you know I'll speak from deep experience in managing RFPs for grid scale resources. We think you know every single RFP that we've done if we had a number in our head of what we thought the price was gonna be for these technologies, we always open the bids, open the envelopes, and are surprised. Sometimes we're surprised that it's lower. Sometimes in recent years, as a result of interest rate increases, as a result of supply chain challenges, as a result of you know changes at the federal level we're surprised in the other direction that prices tend to be higher in this recent years I think that you know and again from the grid scale context we've seen a lot of attrition of projects in our grid scale procurements. And I think that that's been similar in some of the, the distributed, programs as well. And again, that's because, you know, where we were accustomed to seeing prices for solar, you know, declining, year over year now, since the pandemic, we've been in a time period where prices have been increasing due to some of these different disruptions. Project attrition, though, is a in some you can think of it in some form as also, you know, rate payer protection, because it it it it it forces us to confront, you know, how the pricing is changing, and, and and think about, you know, how we strike that right's balance between making sure the megawatts get deployed which an administrative price would do but also making sure that we're really thinking hard about what the value to the rate payer is of getting those megawatts at that price at that at this particular time. I would suggest that you know one of the things that we've done to address that challenge at deep is we recently did an expedited RFP for, grid scale, renewable resources, last year. And, you know, that was reflecting the attrition that we've had in grid scale resources and also the, the upcoming expiration of the federal tax credits. And so we ran a rapid RFP and that was intended to get projects that were more mature in into the into to submit their bids. And so I think that that's unfortunately maybe what we have to be doing a little bit more of is being very nimble in running more frequent RFPs or requiring more maturity of projects for eligibility so that those projects have you know site control they know what their tax regime is going to be and they may be able to provide more certain pricing into that competition. Those are you know that that's just an observation just given how dynamic, these markets are at the present moment. But it's a way that we've achieved some balance of getting projects, without losing the the competitive nature. Of course, it's a little different for for the pure programs, but we'd be happy to I think this is a great debate to be having, because it's a key aspect of program design, that that, needs to be explored, you know, as these programs are being considered for extension.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: That's a great line that, you know, as experts, every time you open the envelope of what prices and bids are, you're surprised. And I think there's somewhere there's a Austrian economist smiling. My other question is obviously you know to your to your colloquy with Representative Piscopo. You know there there's a cost that is absorbed by rate payers here and our, our public benefits charges. Is there a sense currently our res, n res, skeff, what the, the cost of, every kind of annual new procurement totals up to and what the aggregate cost to them are now, per year. If you don't have that information on you, you can always, you know, send it after the hearing. But if you have it on you, I'd be curious.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. I think, in 2025, the behind the meter renewal programs had a net cost to just taking Eversource rate pairs of about 171,000,000. That reflected about a quarter of the public benefits charge. But again, that 24% or so, that number fluctuates a lot depending on the denominator of what's the public benefit charge in any given year. So I don't want to make too much of those particular numbers. I mean, they're also, you know, these programs are paid for over time to the extent that you're, talking about, you know, a tariff rate, right and and there are also costs that will be coming even if the programs were not extended there would be continuing costs for the programs because when we yes when these under the current programs of course the customers who enroll their their project, are are compensated over time. So so, again Twenty twenty years. Right? For a different term lengths for different, you know, programs. So, so it's a it's a, you know, there there's the numbers there's a lot more behind the numbers. And as I said to rep representative Pisco Piscopeau, there's also the benefit side of this equation. Right? That has to be taken into account, as well because I think we've we've seen, you know, significant benefits from supporting the development of these programs over the years and, other parts of the bill would be higher if we didn't have, you know, these programs. But I think that, you know, this is the kind of conversation that's in, that will be good to have around, you know, the extension of the programs, to take both costs and benefits into account, and to also think through how these programs and these dollars can be invested, in a way that is complementary, you know, and can and also considers the cost of other and the cost and benefits of other programs that are not part of the successor or this bill, like the energy storage program. You know, we think that going forward, it's gonna be really valuable since we've, you know, supported the deployment of a lot of solar over time. Pairing that solar with storage, right, is going to, provide for for more incremental value to the grid going forward. The storage program does not have a dollar or a budget cap on it. So, you know, thinking about how these two what's the interplay of these of the extension of these programs with the storage program, for example, so that we can, again get to that sweet spot of like reducing these other parts of the bill extracting a ton of value from the ratepayer dollars invest in these programs that's that's I think the the vision and the goal that we support and would be you know excited to work with the committee and PURA and the Green Bank and everyone, you know, on thinking through all of that holistically.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you for that that answer. And just last question, is there an average, price that our res, NRES and SCF, went off at in, say, the last auction or the last couple of years, kind of for context, you know, similar to the question about the total cost, just, you know, this is ballpark of of, you know, what kind of magnitude we should be thinking about as policy makers.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I don't have that off the top of my head but glad to come back to the committee. Okay. On that. Yeah.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you. Thank Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your answers. Obviously as policymakers we're very concerned about all these different considerations including costs and looking at programs like this. This will be a major question that is answered by this committee and and our lawmakers this year. When you're dealing with tens of millions and and hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. And so this will be a very important subject of debate and deliberation on this committee and in the General Assembly this year.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: And I just if I may just clarify Senator to like many of the there are multiple programs within this bill and within the distributed generation programs and some of them do have caps on them but not all. So it's just my point. Yes.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: And res and SCF have the dollar caps envisioned in this bill and but not our res which is incidentally also a more costly program both per megawatt hour and in the aggregate.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Senator. Representative Foster.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thank you so much. Hi Commissioner Dykes. It's great to see you. I think some of these questions are probably hotly anticipated. So I'm gonna just start with agrivoltaics for a moment. That's probably a question, you could foresee coming from my neck of the woods. You know, East Windsor and Ellington in my district are ground zero for grid scale solar projects. And, there's a lot of conversation about whether or not it counts towards farmland preservation, whether they should be eligible for four ninety property tax exemptions, issues that I don't think this bill opines on but I think need to be duly considered before we move forward. Any conversations about agrivoltaics or whether or not we're citing more projects on farmland. I was wondering if you could sort of comment on whether or not you think that there's a need or a place or a balance to be struck, when you're looking at cumulative impact for total farmland in a given community and whether or not this bill ventures into something that gets us towards open farmland preservation and farm space preservation. I have seen in the history of my following the proceedings of the setting council, it does look like the setting council considers at times core forest consideration. But I have to date not seen a single example of when farmland preservation and the preservation of farmland has swayed a decision or an outcome in any way shape or form. So, I'm curious if you think that there's room to move on this issue. I hope that there is, but this bill has not, from what I can tell, made meaningful progress in that space.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Well, we always, you know, I I think I always take the inclusion of a provision like this in this in the bill at this at this stage of the session to be a good sign that the committee wants to engage on you know constructive ways to address these challenges. So we're you know delighted to as I said bring our experience and what we've you know observed and also how these, how managing these trade offs and the and these, you know, land use considerations, you know, how how we can try to address that going forward. I mean, we we're eager to work with the committee on that through the session. And, if there's a desire to refine, you know, the language or, or even thinking through on the, the first bill with respect to, interconnection. I mean, that also has a a big impact on where developers will then what types of properties they will then be looking, to develop resources depending on the friction associated or how we unlock, you know, interconnection processes. But I wanna, introduce, Eric Hammerling and Camille Fontanella, from our team to very briefly, you know, speak to your question in terms of how, ag is considered, and prime farmland impacts are considered in the current, siting process.

[Eric Hammerling (Director, Office of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives, DEEP)]: Thank you. And representative Foster, appreciate the question. Eric Hammerling, director of the office of environmental review and strategic initiatives at deep. And, one, one of the, authors of a report that we were required to do last year on the Connecticut siting council. One of And I I think you you are, aware of this, but, you know, one of the requirements for the siting council for properties that, have prime farmland soils, and there are petitions to the siting council of, you know, for, projects that are two megawatts or greater, there is a requirement of, the applicant coming to both DEEP and to the Department of Agriculture to request a letter of no material effect if there are prime farmland soils, on their property or core forest. So there is that opportunity, for the agencies to weigh in if there are those highly valued resources.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I'll just say unless it's an amendment to an existing application and in this recent case in my district, an amendment was 35 megawatts, which is bigger than most other total cited and then they usurp that review.

[Eric Hammerling (Director, Office of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives, DEEP)]: Well, there there still is consideration, of prime farmland soils in, in the petition. You're, you're correct that it, you know, in an amendment, to petition there, there still is the ability for the siting council to, to approve a project. How however, there still is consideration of those, now, in terms of the point, for non prime farmland soils, for non core forest, there certainly is far less protection, and the siting council has you know, the the ability to make a decision on a project for, to to say no, on lots of other reasons as well. But, anyway, I appreciate the question.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Can I ask? So, when the setting council is considering whether or not there's a prime in prime soil, is Crest the preeminent tool? Because according to Crest, there's no prime farmland in East Wind Core. According to this tool, if I press the the button and ask for it to look at you're not gonna be able to see this appropriately. If I ask further to be soil in my district there's none but I'm probably one of the most agriculturally dense communities in

[Eric Hammerling (Director, Office of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives, DEEP)]: the state. No. I would say that the citing council has access to the CREST tool and and many others, but that that's not what they rely on. They they rely on, you know, what what is the available information from the, NRCS soil conservation service.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: But that's what your data source is, is NRCS on this tool. Correct?

[Eric Hammerling (Director, Office of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives, DEEP)]: Correct. That is correct.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: But it shows nothing.

[Eric Hammerling (Director, Office of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives, DEEP)]: But the but it's not it's not specifically through through Crest was was your question. But but that that's what the, you know, prime farmland soil determination is based on.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Okay. That might not be the most comprehensive definition if, East Windsor which is like a historic agricultural community with thousands of acres of active farmland is not caught on a mapping tool from NRCS or from Crest. There there might be a data flaw there that warrants consideration in the process. And it could be a GIS issue where it's not synced appropriately. But if the data is not right on an export from NRCS too deep, my I doubt that the siting council would have a tool or resource to be able to look beyond that and it doesn't appear in my, sort of, following of the siting council's processes in my district although they are required to consider. Their consideration is actually a moot point in many places. They're supposed to consider places. They're supposed to consider public commentary but that's not indexed publicly anywhere online, and it's not there's no conversation about a public commentary that continues on throughout their process. So, I think there are some significant administrative flaws to say the least. And, you know, this is coming from someone who's now had repeated interactions with the siting council. You'd think I'd have the ability to be pretty savvy at this point. I don't have the hubris to believe that I know it all but I don't know. If someone with a PhD can't figure out how to get their towns what they need as their advocate throughout the siting council and it's hard for me, I feel bad for the neighbors in my community who are struggling to figure out how to get their voices heard, in these processes. So I do think I I beg deep to start thinking about and considering ways that the consideration of Farmland Preservation is actually part of what is part of your integrated review plan, what is actually part of what you're guiding, in your advocacy when you're sending letters to the siting council. I think that there's been a missed opportunity here. And I'll just point out there is some language in this version here about tax exemptions. And we've worked very, very hard over many years to establish a uniform capacity tax. So communities like East Windsor, who have, you know, the biggest brunt of solar siting aren't also hamstrung with local burden, subsidizing that energy production for the whole state. And so I'm curious if you believe that we should go back to exempting this grid scale or if we should continue on the status course with, the uniform capacity tax?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I would say a lot of these issue or go ahead. Eric, did you have? Okay. I mean, we're we're happy to work with you, you know, representative. I mean, you you know, there's a lot of solar that's been developed in your district and I think your experience and perspective on this is very important. You know we're happy to you know work with you on on the evolution of this provision or you know, other language that might move forward this this year. We have to continue to leverage the experience that we have as we, you know, have deployed more megawatts to, find the right balance of of, of these land use issues, rate payer cost, predictable and efficient, siting and permitting processes. And it's it's not easy, but it's this kind of, like, perspective and dialogue that, we've we've been having over the years. It helps us get better. And so happy to continue talking with you about it.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I hope that if there's an opportunity that you all consider in your testimony as someone who's like a key stakeholder in the uniform capacity tax conversations to date is that you support tax exemptions for rooftops, for canopies, for brownfield, for, landfills that have solar siding. But if it's on prime and important form line, if it's on core forest, the uniform capacity tax should be the minimum standard for what they're paying towards their local municipal tax base. And after we spent years negotiating, between your agency and others, I hope that you all will support maintaining the uniform capacity tax in those spaces. And, I'm comfortable with tax exemptions if it's on a rooftop. That's how we tip the scale, to to move things more towards rooftops and brownfields. But, but we should not be providing these developers with tax exemptions for developing solar. My last question if I may be indulged. As we talk about energy affordability and moving forward, one of the things that we have talked about is sort of this interconnection queue challenge. I asked the same question to the Green Bank. Do you have a lever that we can pull that will help? And would you be comfortable with replicating what's on the federal level at FERC, at the state level to sort of in, you know, in cohorts approve solar projects? Would that delay an increased cost of solar or would that help enough people where that would be worth it? I'm curious what your thoughts are.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. We were big advocates of, the cluster study, approach to interconnection, you know, years ago at the federal level and and, for good scale projects. And we think that that's a positive, approach, because it does socialize the cost of interconnection among all of the developers that are benefited. I think where we, you know, the things that I think a lot about is is just, you know, concern about approaches that might start to have rate pair socialize the cost of interconnection to rate pairs as opposed to pulling it among the developers. But those those cluster study approaches I think are a positive practice in this bill. You know to the extent that it convenes a working group to identify every you know every best tool that we can utilize and and brings recommendations back to the legislature. We think that that's something that would be really valuable.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I think the cluster study makes a lot of sense and I think there's probably an important distinction to be made between people who are building solar for their own local use on-site for their own businesses, facilities, schools and municipalities versus those who are doing it for profit for generation that's being sold into the grid and maybe that distinction could be made, in how we consider, you know, cluster applications. Because for me, I think people who are developing it for their own use should have access to capacity when it's their moment to do it, but that not be the case necessarily when you're selling it for profit, that benefit the rate payer should not bear the cost of for profit developers developing solar. But if it's for local and your own use then you are the rate payer and you should get that benefit. In my head that distinction makes sense.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. I guess the question I would have though is like where rate payers are also paying. That's what we see with the successor study. Right. The rate payers are paying for that those customers to deploy that generation you know on their on their facilities too. So any case. But these are like great dialogue things to discuss you know in a working group context and think through and happy to you know rather than react on the fly I think these are you know I'll just reflect that I think this is a good and timely conversation for you know utilities and PURA and everyone to be to be having and I know PURA has done some some work in this area already with their previous working group.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you representative. I would agree that PURA made a good start with their interconnection study, but we still have a lot more to do, and I know that DEEP will be intimately involved with that. Before I hand it off to representative Winter, just to follow-up on some of the conversation we've had. Obviously, appropriately, we've a lot of conversation about costs, about the public benefits charge, but you made a an allusion earlier to the, value related that benefits rate payers. Can you help us better understand? We've not done a great job connecting the dots between benefits charges and avoided costs on the side of the energy bill, which is actually growing at the most rapid rate. So, can you just help us better understand the value to rate payers in this context?

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: I'm happy to take that one, representative. I think, as as the commissioner noted

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: This is Andy Frank, our deputy commissioner.

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yes. Thank you. As the as the commissioner noted the our recommendations in our comments are really focused on making sure that the successor to the tariffs is focused squarely on value. And obviously, there's a competition aspect of that. But to your point, it's also about really making sure that the value that's being created is supporting all rate payers. And I think the things that we've seen, you know, not just on the policy side, but also on the market side, really speak to that. So there's a big shift, that's been, happening kind of across the country and we think is, you know, appropriate for Connecticut as well, is making sure that we're valuing, energy, especially renewable energy, based on when it is, when it is produced and the value that it is when it's exported to the grid. And so, you know, obviously the grid, especially the distribution grid, is very dynamic. Energy is valued at different times, and we think that, making sure that those, those incentives are appropriately reflecting the value that's being created at different points of time can maximize the ratepayer value. And I would say especially, and I know that, Brian mentioned this before in in in his comments, that pairing solar and storage is really where a lot of that value lies. And I know a lot of companies in this space are, you know, referring themselves as kind of battery first and and solar as a way to to to add to that battery. And I think that that's kind of, like, where, you know, we see, the market being headed, is ensuring that the incentive price signal that's being sent to the market is really making sure that it's it's aligned with the the the net rate payer, value so that the, you know, the benefit, line and the public benefits charge is really being being maximized.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I think, you know, and as you've heard me say before, like, we find that we wanna focus on that value and then we wanna pay have rate payers pay as little as they have to to get it. And that's where, you know, competition and, like, good program design comes in. But I think, you know, zooming out as well, we know that these programs are providing enormous benefits and savings on other parts of the bill. And that's not always what customers see when they open up their bill and they see public benefits charge and so on and so forth. They're not seeing, like, the shadow bill of what your bill would be if we didn't have the investments on the public benefits charge. All of these programs that have been enacted with legislative authority over years and years have been a reaction by legislators oftentimes on a bipartisan basis to you know needing to take action to address market failures and cost you know cost increases that are looming on other parts of the bill. So the distributed generation programs in the in the public benefits charge as well as the, you know, the conservation load management program, the grid scale of, resource procurements that are funded there are helping to offset, you know, generation charges that would otherwise be higher, transmission charges that would otherwise be higher, and distribution costs that would otherwise be higher. So that's what's really driving a lot of these investments. I'll just note, and so distributed solar, you know, it's helping to avoid turning on more, costly and expensive, conventional generation. It's, providing for reduced, emissions, reduced air pollution, as well, from, you know, oil units, for example, that can be expensive and and generating NOx emissions that can be really challenging, forming ozone contributing to, you know, asthma and respiratory illness rates that are really high, in Connecticut. We know that, building out more distributed generation on the ISO New England is taking account of that rooftop solar, when they're forecasting, how much capacity we're going to need to build. It's helped us to avoid having to build more transmission. This, the, you know, transmission rates have gone up 75% in the last decade. It would be higher, if we didn't have a lot of this rooftop and distributed, resource operating. I'll even note, this is an interesting one, that the ISO has acknowledged over the last, just few years is in the wintertime, just as we've seen in February when we've had to turn on these, oil units, very expensive oil units to keep the lights on, when when gas is unavailable. You know, when the solar, is operating, during during the day, it helps to, back off those oil units. And that's not only reducing the emissions and the cost of running the oil units, but it actually ensures that those oil units can, preserve their oil. Okay? Because they operate almost like a multi day storage facility, and it stretches the duration that those oil units can operate, which is enormously value valuable from a reliability standpoint. So even though solar is intermittent, these rooftop resources aren't operating all the time, particularly in the wintertime when the sun is going down, and come, you know, earlier. They're also providing this reliability benefit as well, which is, by the way, reliability is not very easy to value, you know, on your bill. So, anyway, just wanted to not to run on too long, but I think that's just another really fundamental important point to make, you know, as you're thinking about, authorizing more investment in these resources going forward.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I like the way you've been running on in this one. You know, as you're aware, commissioner, this committee has contemplated once again reopening the electric bill, in ways in which we can more transparency transparently explicate what the charges are. At the risk of adding another five pages to the bill, are there ways for us to dimensionalize monetize some of these benefits that you described so that we can help consumers appreciate the benefits that they're paying for?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. It's a great question. I think the legislation we testified it on last at your last hearing you know would have PURA opening a docket and considering that very question. You know people are busy you know and and and I think there's a lot of thought that goes into the design of the bill to provide people with more transparency to help them understand the value that they're getting from these investments. And so we'd be happy to participate in the in a if that bill you know is forward in a pure process to work with utilities and think about how to better, explain these types of things. We work really hard, with, the Energize CT programs and utilizing, the deep website and the Energize CT website to help people understand the steps that they can take, the actions that they can take, and how they can participate in these programs to get even more direct benefits, from these programs. You know, I think there's a lot of great things that are in, this this bill to extend the the, DG programs to ensure that renters and folks in multifamily, will have will be able to take action and access these programs too. I think that's a really vital part for folks that are thinking about, you know, what they're paying towards the public benefits charge. Of course, a lot of the cost effectiveness testing for these programs that are in the public benefits charge requires that they the programs have to provide, greater than one benefits to all rate payers, even those who don't participate. But how we help people who may have concerns about the programs, make sure that they can have the equitable opportunity to participate in the programs is really important. And then just, you know, ultimately, doing everything we can to bring these bills down. I mean, I think that's why we're having these conversations in the first place is that we've seen a lot of volatility, a lot of price spikes, a lot of, you know, increases in electric rates. That's not unique to Connecticut. You know, residential rates are up 30 across the entire country, and it's not inflation adjusted. A lot of that is inflation too. Right? But, you know, I think, ultimately, what you the opportunity that you have with this program, extending these programs is to ensure that they continue to, you know, be available, make them make access equitable. So, lots of folks can participate and ultimately, find the right way to design these programs so we can pay as little as we need to to get the value you know the enormous value that can come from these programs and that kind of budgetary consideration I think is ultimately what will help to ensure they continue to have broad support in the state going forward.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that and I would encourage DEEP to participate in any conversation we have about educating the public and helping them better value that which they have or that they're investing in. I've always found Deep has been very good at having good graphics that clearly illustrate some of these propositions so that, you know, I I don't know necessarily how you represent avoided costs or reduce risk, but, this is something that consumers should value because failing to follow through on some of these programs, more likely involves even higher costs for them. Maybe we need to break out just the, trend lines on the delivery side of the bill, so people better understand why things are trending in that direction. I'll leave it at that. I'll pass it on to representative Winter.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon, commissioner Dykes.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Good to

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: see you.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Good to see you.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: On on the thread about the value of solar, how would that be, or how should that be reflected in our process as we look at the export rates for a successor program? Mister Garcia had mentioned the idea that we should include in statute a net benefit principle. He said reducing, electric rates should be, we should add that to the, to the bill. Is that the right approach? Or is there another approach that you think we should look at in terms of providing direction to PURA for valuing solar and making sure that we're, providing value to non participants?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. So, I think, deputy commissioner Frank was getting into that a little bit with his comments. The the, you know, the time of discharge is really essential. Again, you know, for folks familiar with the duck curve, right? We have really congratulations to us. We have crushed that afternoon peak. Right? And now, what we need to go after is, you know, the value in reducing, the the ramp up of of conventional generation,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: right, in the, before the solar is turning on and in

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: the evening when it evening when it when it's ramping up. Right? To to as the the solar is declining and that's where, you know, that that's really important for this. You know, it's very this is great. Like, we're you know, the the legislature has to reauthorize this program because, you know, from time to time, you can check-in on the success and identify how the grid is changing, and and really, think through how to target that the, this, where the the maximum incremental value is now coming from these distributed generation resources. And so that's why I think it's, you know, there's a lot of positive moves that the PURA successor study identifies in terms of how that tariff, you know, compensation is set on that, I think reflects the changing temporal value, of solar. I think that it's important, very wise as you consider the reauthorization to then also take into account, storage, the storage program that will become an important companion to this in terms of the overall, you know, investment level that the legislature wants to see rate payers supporting. And, and ultimately back to value. I mean, this is again my refrain is like we we we identify that value that helps justify having the programs and then let's use every administrative tool that we can to leverage competition, to pay, you know, as as as little as we have to, to get the projects deployed and and extract that value. That's that's the kind of the the key focus I think we should have in in mind, in terms of the design of these these programs going forward.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Well, I I understand the idea of using storage to flatten the duck curve, but I think that there's a pretty big delta between the retail rate and the supply rate. And if we're too low at the supply rate, we won't be deploying residential systems. And if we're too high, we may be overpaying. So, trying to understand in terms of this question of valuing solar in that context, it's in order to incentivize the storage if there's any further direction you all have.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Andy? Yeah.

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: And just to make sure I understand, you're asking basically how do you set the relative, I guess, kind of incentives or price signals of the residential solar

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: versus storage or? Yeah, for power that's not consumed on-site that's exported to the grid.

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, again, I think that the, you know, that needs to be based on where there's value to the grid. Right? And that's obviously, you know, kind of under under PURA's, jurisdiction and and in terms of exactly how that kind of plays out and what those what those numbers looks like, which hours make, you know, are are most valuable in different parts of the state or for different different customer classes. And I think the the the broader point is is that that's a, you know, a very important input, right, into then sending the right market signal around what kinds of solar systems, how you should size it, should you, you know, in some cases, over sizing based on expected load makes sense, depending on the batteries that you have, the kinds of batteries you're putting in, the size of those batteries. The market, I think, can respond very well based on what value they're being given by these incentive programs. And so, I think the important thing, which, again, is, I think, highlighted in the Imperialist draft successor study, is really making sure to define that value as well as as well as we can when, designing the incentive when and when designing those incentive levels so that the greatest, benefits can be can be give to the repairs. I wanna make sure I'm answering your question accurately, but that's that's how I view it.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: I I think so. But is there language like, mister Garcia used, you know, about including language in statute that these systems will reduce electric rates? Like is that the direction that we should provide? Or is there some other direction we should provide? Yeah, it's

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: a great question. Happy to take that back in terms of specific statutory and statutory language, but I think the the general intent is is along the lines of basically maximizing rate payer rate payer value, which is ultimately about reducing, bills overall. The questions are always over, of course, like, the temporal nature of that to keep going back to the same, same concept and how that interacts with other parts of the, of the bills, but happy to come back on on specific, language, recommendations.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: And some of this relates to, you know, how retail rates are designed. Right? So for example, like for the commercial customer installing storage, the value proposition is around avoiding or reducing or, you know, optimizing around demand charges. And of course, like so there's a lot of design going into the demand charge, right, that that then is providing that incentive for that customer. So is there, you know, how how you design those demand charges, I think is informative to what the value is you're gonna get out of the storage system. But this is, you know, this is a huge question as we're supporting distributed. Distributed storage is very different than distributed solar. Right? Because it does bring into these questions as rate payers are compensating these customers for putting this storage behind the meter. How are we aligning the value for the customer with ultimately value to the the rate payers helping to pay for that storage and the grid as a whole, which is why we're doing this in the first place. And who is managing and and and has the assurance of the how that storage is gonna be dispatched and operated. Right? The distribution utility or the ISO. Right? So it's really tricky to to work out, and PURE has done a lot of work on this in the energy storage solutions program. My point with earlier was only to, you know, just I think this is where I don't know that they'll have a I think these are the discussions that need to be had with appropriate direction from the legislature, you know, in the pure process to make sure we can try to maximize, the value of these storage systems as much as possible while also making it attractive, for customers to install.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: And with the energy storage solutions program, should that program be extended to whatever date the successor programs are extended?

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I know that they're not coterminous. I don't know off the top of my head what the timeline is for the the that program. I I I I you know, maybe Bureau would have a view on that or or we could we could think about that. But I think the key really is more to just be mindful as you're authorized as this bill moves forward of how it is interacting with that other existing program, which is not part of, you know, which is doesn't have to be authorized in this bill.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Yeah. If this program were extended for or successor program began for eight years, it would extend two years past ESS and they'd recommended having them line up. So Mhmm. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Yeah. I think one of the conversations we will have is when we talk about a successor program is the alignment of all the different components so that they are in concert, so to speak. Any other questions or comments? If not, we've kept you quite some time, commissioner. We appreciate it.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I apologize because I have a tendency to run on too long. So I feel like I've I've I should apologize to the other witnesses actually, but thank you for the opportunity.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. We've blown well past the first hour. So, with apologies to counsel Coleman, we will go to the public and then to counsel Coleman. So next up, we have Andrew Belden from Eversource Energy.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: It's the

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: way it goes. Cookie crumbles.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Afternoon, all. Are folks able to hear me?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yes. We can. Please proceed.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Great. Excellent. So good afternoon, chairman Needleman, chairman Steinberg, ranking member Fazio, ranking member Mara, and other members of the committee. My name is Andrew Belden, vice president of renewable programs and strategy at Eversource. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on h b fifty three forty. Eversource serves 1,800,000 customers across Connecticut, and we support advancing the state's clean energy goals. At the same time, we believe clean energy programs must be designed in a way that protects the affordability of electric service for all customers. With this in mind, we provide the following comments. First, regarding the agrivoltaics proposal, integrating solar with agriculture is an important policy goal. The bill currently includes no cost cap or funding limits. Given the focus on affordability, we recommend adding guardrails such as a procurement cap or alternative state funding to help manage long term program costs. We also suggest aligning the cost recovery language in this section with the language used elsewhere in the statute to maintain consistency and clarity. Next, regarding portable solar generation section five, these devices offer customers new options, but if not properly sized and operated, they may unintentionally export power onto the grid during normal operations. Standard utility meters will record exported energy as consumption, leading to unexpected bills for customers with port portable solar generation. We recommend the state adopt clear consumer protections and disclosures so customers fully understand these issues. As the state explores advanced metering infrastructure, future metering technology will support these devices. Meters we are currently installing in Massachusetts automatically accommodate export of energy, and solar projects only need to sign up for solar specific rates in order to export power. Regarding the successor programs for Ares, NRES, and SCF, these programs have been important drivers of clean energy deployment, and we support their continuation. However, program costs have grown significantly from under $10,000,000 per year in 2015 to nearly a 100,000,000 180,000,000 in 2025. Existing solar projects alone will add at least 2,000,000,000 to customer bills over the next decade. We encourage the legislature to incorporate more explicit cost control measures as part of any successor programs. For the RS successor program specifically, we recommend adjusting compensation structures so they are set below full retail rates, such as potentially tying compensation to standard service energy costs. This ensures customers continue contributing to the grid services they still rely on and will help slow the growth of program costs. For the NRES and SCF successor programs, we recommend maintaining competitive solicitations rather than relying solely on pure asset fixed incentive rates. Competent competitive prices historically delivered some of the lowest incentive program prices in the region and moving away from them risks higher customer costs as other states have experienced. In closing, Erisource supports the continued growth of renewable energy in Connecticut. We believe adding cost safeguards, maintaining competitive procurements, and aligning program design across sections of the bill will help state the state advance its clean energy goals while keeping bills affordable. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. I'll just get it started with a couple of things, and we'll hand it off. Obviously, the the darling of of the moment is plug in solar, and there's a lot of interest in it. And, apparently, other states are moving forward with that. You made reference to appropriate safeguards and controls. Does Eversource have a point of view? I mean, we wanna seriously consider moving something like this forward. What would it take for Eversource to get behind it?

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Yeah. And and, you know, we certainly recognize that there's a a lot of excitement about this technology, and and we think it it has the potential to solve a a real problem for renters and and folks who haven't previously been able to take advantage of of clean energy options. We do understand that there are potential technologies that prevent these these installations from exporting to the grid during operations. That would effectively resolve the concern that we have about customers exporting power to the grid and then being charged for it because the meters that they currently have are not set up for it. I think as reference in my testimony, we also think that AMI is a potential solution to this problem, where, you know, every meter in the state of Massachusetts will be able to accommodate, these these sorts of installations because we we have and are are currently employing AMI there.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I'm always glad to hear Eversource endorse AMI. We won't be talking about it for a decade.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: But I think it's more than a decade at this point.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. I mean, the point is we don't have it, and it's frustrating a lot of stuff. And speaking of frustration, let me segue to a conversation on interconnections. You've heard that come up a number of times. Frankly, nobody is happy with the current situation for the time it takes, the cost, the predictability of interconnections here in the state of Connecticut, large scale, small scale. We're a small state. How does Eversource help us get past this? Because we don't seem to be making progress.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Yeah. No. Agreed. And we both understand and and and can agree with the frustration. I'd point everyone to to your docket twenty two zero six twenty nine. And we've we've been having this conversation specifically about how to do cluster studies, how to fund the tens of billions of dollars that are required to do upgrades that come out of those cluster studies. We have, we think, built a better mousetrap in Massachusetts, and in that that docket in front of PURA, we've been discussing the the specifics of how to bring that model to Connecticut. That docket has been quiet for a while, but it is still open, and, you know, we're hopeful that we can get to a good place where we can make these investments. And the cost of those investments are appropriately attributed to both, interconnecting solar customers today, ones in the future, and then to the extent that any of these upgrades provide benefits, to customers more broadly, that those customers, support the those investments. So, you know, that is that's out, but, you know, we're hopeful that, Pure Purell will continue to move the ball within that docket.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. Obviously, I think, Connecticut's future competitiveness is very much tied to our ability to, make sure we have the appropriate infrastructure to support expansions in, capacity. We're counting on the utilities to act as partners with PURA and the legislature in getting to a point where, you know, the industry has some predictability and, we are not constantly, finding ourselves in the circumstance where we're waiting on the interconnection. So, appreciate your comments, and we really look forward to, Pure's docket helping us make progress in this regard. We talked a little earlier about, do we need some incentives? And and we we talked about it some of that. I sure hope we don't get in a situation where we need to talk about penalties to assure that interconnections happen on a timely basis. Senator Fazio.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank thank you, sir, for your testimony. You mentioned other states had switched to an administratively a government set price for the solar as opposed to having a reverse auction. Can can you tell me what states those might include if you have it off the top of your head and what their experience was with it?

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think there is speculation that we see in Connecticut that moving from an auction based approach to administrative lease set approach will help substantially increase the number of projects that reach interconnection. I I I'm here to tell you we have run this experiment. Massachusetts has administratively set pricing, and that pricing is substantially more than what we see in the Connecticut the Connecticut solicitations.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Do you have

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: numbers by chance? I do.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: I do. So in in Massachusetts between 2022 and 2025, we awarded 200 megawatts worth of, large scale solar through administrative strictly set pricing. Currently, right now, 30 megawatts of those projects are operating. So that's a yield of about 15%. I I think it is slightly higher than the yield that we currently see for SCAF and NREZ, but I wouldn't say that it is materially higher. And, the pricing that we have on average for projects in Massachusetts currently for incentives is $280 per megawatt hour. In SCF, this past year, the maximum price that we could award for a project is a $180 per megawatt hour. So I think that you know, we're we're still taking in bids for SCAF for this year. We'll so we'll see what the average pricing is. But the the the state of Massachusetts has, you know, provided significantly higher incentives through administrative pricing, and it has not resulted, in significantly higher yields, for that their programs.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: And is that like for like, those are both grid scale or utility scale projects?

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Yeah. It's the the, you know, 200 to five mega 200 kilowatts to five five megawatt range.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: And for context, for for some of the listeners or viewers, of which I know there are many, What what is the I never know a joke's gonna work. But, what's what's the context of if you're a merchant generator selling into the competitive wholesale market, what are you getting for the price of energy compared to a 180, dollars per megawatt hour or $290 per megawatt hour?

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Yeah. And we actually see it within the context of our programs because we purchase the energy, and then we we sell it off into the ISO grid and and and get value for it. I'd say, the the energy that we're we're selling from these programs, and ballpark, and I can get you a a a so, we're selling it for 60 or $70 a megawatt hour.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Okay. So it's, you know, sometimes three times the the market rate for energy that presumably these for profit companies are are getting a subsidy for, and and obviously, that's financed through our electric bill. So contemplating increasing that even further, to adopt the Massachusetts model, you know, hold your wallets. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, senator. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, thank you for your testimony. Obviously, we'll be involved with conversations after this hearing about some of the elements here. We appreciate your participation. Thank you.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Next, we will go back to executive and elected officials with the Office of the Consumer Council, Claire Coleman. Welcome.

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. Great to see everyone. Claire Coleman. I'm the consumer council, head of the office of consumer council. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I know we've already had long robust discussions about several bills. I'll very quickly run through a couple bills that, my team and I weighed in on, and then happy to answer any questions. I'll go in order of the agenda, which, leaves solar for last, which I guess is appropriate since it's solar day. We do support SB, three twenty, which is an act establishing a working group concerning electric transmission facilities and electric grid capacity planning. There's a lot of great work in this space happening right now and, our role, both at the state level and regionally is is critically important. We serve as, we have a voting seat at NEpool, which works on transmission planning and we're engaging more proactively after the passage of the act last year on working with our utilities to understand asset condition project planning and spending, and I think any efforts to continue discussions and figure out, how we can contain costs, in that transmission line on up of our bill, we welcome and are happy to be a part of. OCC did comment on, the fourth agenda item, HB five three three seven, and that concerning district heating system incentives. To be honest, we had a little, uncertainty around the intent of this, but it seemed to be wanting to layer incentives on top of incentives which is always a red flag for us, as the rate payer advocate. So, we'd just like to understand the intent of that and suggest that, we limit additional incentives if that was the intent of the the bill. We also provided detailed comments on, agenda item number five, HB 5,338. This is an act concerning the designation of certain service providers for purposes of the federal lifeline service benefits. My team did a great job of unpacking what we think is the intent of this bill in written testimony. In general, we certainly, support the Lifeline program which augments affordability, and really is is was established to ensure that customers are able to receive affordable and high quality telecommunication service. These goals are pursued through PURA's State Lifeline program, which augments affordability and its telecommunications relay service, the TRS service, which enhances accessibility for consumers who are hard of hearing and speech disabled. These programs are funded by assessing an interstate telecommunications carrier and also on intrastate and interstate revenues. So, we had a lot of questions about the impact of the terminology changes proposed, in the bill and ultimately landed on the need to study and evaluate this further just to make sure we understand the impacts in terms of funding levels, which communications providers are impacted, and how this should be managed and run through the State Lifeline program. So we suggest exploring this a little further before pursuing the specific changes. And finally, and last but not least, we do support the committee's efforts to get the conversation going on these very important solar successor programs, through HB fifty three forty. OCC strongly believes it's important to design the successor program to support grid flexibility and deliver improved value and affordability for all Connecticut rate payers. We've, I've enjoyed the lengthy discussion you had both, with Brian Garcia and Commissioner Dykes, and I'm certainly aligned with the need, to design the program in a way that, we're maximizing system value and I think the recommendations in the PURA report go a long way, to that end, and we're, of course, focused on maximizing benefits. The grid benefits that will, benefit all customers as well as reducing costs, for solar deployment. So we're we look forward to working with the committee as it continues to develop that framework. I did have a couple, responsive points just listening to the conversation. First, I do wanna say, you know, I agree with Brian's suggestion that we prioritize these programs and incentives that can help reduce rates overall which means focusing on reducing peak demand and avoiding infrastructure build out. With respect to the discussion around energy efficiency audits for SCF participants, we'd like to discuss that a little further with with all of the various stakeholders. ARES at one point did have a requirement that, the Hess IE audits were conducted before a solar installation and I think it was found that, many people were just kinda checking the box, getting the audit, and not pursuing measures, and therefore it just became another step and a kind of another loophole to go through where as people who raise their hand and say they want a Hessai ADA are motivated to actually pursue the measures, so the funding might be better, more impactful if we're utilizing it for those who are actually interested in Energy Efficiency upgrades. So, we definitely like to talk through that a little bit more, with stakeholders. On interconnection improvements, I'm really glad that's been a focus of discussion today. I did wanna add to the conversation, Chair Steinberg, that there has been, in addition to the interconnection working group at PURA and the one hundred day sprint that PURA did evaluating interconnection improvements, the performance based rate making framework which we worked very hard at developing over the last few years which is in draft form before pure ed, does include, performance incentive mechanism, a PIM, related to interconnection timelines and ensuring, you know, the EDCs are, improving timeline per and speed performance. There is a PIM which does include upside and downside or rewards and penalties, for smaller DER, projects. And then for larger, I think it's above 25 megawatts, there was a scorecard developed because those are newer and we really need need more data before you can set an actual appropriate incentive or penalty. But we're waiting for those important decisions to be approved and finalized by our esteemed Public Utilities Commission so hopefully that will come out soon. And I should note that in addition to the PIMS framework, there's also the third track of the performance based rate making docket was on developing an integrated distribution system plan, and that will include grid planning and, forecasting and provide a lot more insight into, what might cause interconnection delays sort of looking at a from a longer term horizon which I think will be really helpful. So, also excited for that third track of the PBR framework to be approved by PURA soon. And with that, I will see if there are any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, thank you as always for your testimony. Why don't we focus for a minute because maybe all some people are gonna spend on telecommunications side. I I I understand that you may have struggled a little bit with the intent, but, you know, I think lifeline speaks for itself in some ways in that these this is a program that is an important support here in the state of Connecticut. Have you thought a little bit how I mean and and I know it's complicated. Anything with telecommunications, who pays for it and and whether they're coming or going, confounds us often. But if you could spend a minute talking about, the program and how you see a way for us to sustain it and meet, you know, the needs of consumers.

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Sure. I'll certainly I'll start by saying we certainly support, sustaining the Lifeline program and continuing to ensure it has, adequate funding. I'm going to turn over your more detailed question to my colleague, Rhianna Ash, who has spent the last few days digging into the Lifeline history since, receiving this proposal to really determine what, the state the current state of play is and how we can best move forward. So, Rianna?

[Rianna Ash (Telecom Policy Adviser, OCC)]: Thank you, Claire. Rianna Ash, telecom policy adviser for OCC, and thank you for your question. I think a good place to start is the fact that the federal Lifeline Program is usually what people think of when discussing the Lifeline Program. That is funded through a pass through fee on consumer bills, the universal service fund fee, which is a percentage of the interstate revenue, on a consumer bill that is then remitted into the universal service fund. That percentage changes on a quarterly basis. So that is a fluctuating, cost on consumer bills that then goes to support the Federal Lifeline Program. In Connecticut, we have a separate Lifeline Fund. Not entirely stand alone. It does lend itself to certain elements of the federal Lifeline Program such as eligibility streamlining, as of 2016. But with regards to the funding, it's actually funded through the Connecticut Service Fund which is established by the statute that we're here to discuss today and its proposed updates. The The Connecticut Service Fund is responsible for the funding of two programs, the Lifeline program in Connecticut and also the Telecommunications Relay Service or TRS. And looking at the fund that is responsible for, you know, running these two critical programs for accessibility and for affordability in Connecticut, we're very concerned with the perpetuated funding of this program and what any potential fluctuations to funding the Connecticut program could mean, not only for consumers who are bill payers, but also for the consumers who benefit from these affordability and accessibility measures. So, at this time, this bill to our read changes the funding structure for the Connecticut Service Fund. This changes potentially To the best of my knowledge and research, there are currently three forty seven providers that pay into the Connecticut Service Fund. And in addition, it changes the types of revenue that are applicable for the assessments, to fund these programs. And some of the changes are clear, some of the changes less so. Ultimately, our recommendation is that a study is proposed in order to better understand how the current Connecticut Lifeline program is serving consumers, and also, how any proposed modernizations that some of this language would allow for, would be best conducted.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. I have some other questions, but I know Senator Fazio would like to follow-up on this.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you, counsel Coleman, and for your testimony. I read, you know, similar to Deep that you share the concerns about the administrative set price, on the proposed solar programs. But, you know, just zooming out for a moment, we heard testimony that, you know, every year we're adding, you know, tens of millions of dollars in, in these programs and costs on the rate payers. And, they're fifteen, twenty year contracts. So, they now add up to hundreds of millions of dollars, which means if we renew this program, it could be billions of dollars of rate payer impacts and cost into the future. You know, so from from a consumers council standpoint, how concerned are you of a price tag that high, on the backs of, consumers and, how could we mitigate that further?

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Thanks for the question, which is of course a difficult one and really I look at this from two lenses. One is, you know, it makes sense to me that our solar programs have received, you know, big uptake over the last five years. When you look at the supply market that we're a part of and the volatility, in pricing and the, you know, and, you know, the when the, Russia invasion of Ukraine happened we saw huge price spikes in natural gas, and that that were raising prices and I think drove a lot of people to see solar as a solution, and we're currently in unfortunately another Middle East crisis where, you know, volatility is a scary thing. And and as a consumer advocate, I want customers to have access to tools that can reduce their bills and I do believe solar does that on an individual basis. On the other hand from the, you know, rate payer lens of representing all rate payers we do see that as program uptake swings upward. There are the costs reflected on the bill for net metering credits which have multiplied at, you know, recently in correspondence with the increase in solar. So it is appropriate to rebalance and make sure that our solar programs are cost effective and that they're not unfairly burdening all rate pairs and I think this successor study couldn't have come at a better time because we need that reset, and we appreciate the initial leg work that PURA has done to, start the evaluation. I think there's a lot of work to be done to ensure that we're able to continue these programs in ways that are cost effective and maximize, benefits for all rate payers while continuing to support that deployment and that consumer choice for individual customers.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you. Thank you. You know, I think we're at roughly twenty years of or more of providing subsidies like this to renewable producers, especially the solar industry. You know, I'm wondering at what point does the industry have to stand on its own without consumer rate payer subsidies sometimes at two or three times in your view?

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Well, I, you know, I think I'd answer that by saying I think this, you know, state policy directive is important in terms of how much of a budget, the state is comfortable providing. Of course, I'm always a fan of, other mechanisms, you know, that are not rate payer funded mechanisms to support new industries, you know, tax incentives or or other other ways of financing that are that are more progressive and don't hit customer bills.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Budgetary instead of consumer rate payer. Yeah.

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Correct. So I, you know, I think there's always an ebb and flow and we and that's been the challenge for the industry I think as we've kind of had to adjust from a period of high federal incentives and now we're seeing the opposite. It's been hard to pinpoint that right level of deployment that we want to benefit the electric grid and long term sustain ability and long term cost savings, but, we, you know, we don't have an unlimited budget and we need to limit that, and that's, what I hope the, you know, the new successor program will take into consideration.

[Sen. Ryan Fazio (Ranking Member, Senate)]: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I think I have a little different answer for senator Fazio with regard to when we will seriously consider ending renewable energy subsidies here in the state of Connecticut. I think that time occurs when we eliminate all the subsidies for fossil fuels.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: I'll do it tomorrow. I'm with you. I'll do it tomorrow. 100%. I'll do it tomorrow. You and

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I, we can work on something.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: There. Fazio Steinberg. Maybe we'll go the other way around.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, depends what you're aiming for. In any case, I think the the point is well taken. We we all desire to not have to support any industry that that that is on its own terms. But unfortunately, we don't have a level playing field now. And in many ways, we are, all rate payers are paying for the environmental and health care impacts of fossil fuels. So, striking the right balance as we keep talking about this committee, balance in all things is what, I think we desire, and that's what we're aiming for. Are there any other questions or comments? You got off pretty easy. You see, going third is a real advantage.

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: That's welcome. I've got lots to do.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I wanna make it clear. We're not exhausted yet. We still have plenty of energy effort that was coming after. Thank you, counsel Coleman. Next up, we have Scott Gilmartin from Newpar LLC, and then we're gonna correct a an error. Apparently, we have a first selectman further down the list who was not recognized as an elected official. So Jason Bowser will be next if he's available. Welcome, mister Gilmartin. Good to see you. Please.

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: Good afternoon, senator Needleman and representative Steinberg and honorable members of the committee. My name is Scott Gilmartin. I'm the co founder of new power LLC. We are the developer of the Bridgeport Thermal Loop, which is currently under construction. And by the way, we've been fortunate to have, a number of, state representatives and constitutional officers actually come out and visit this project because it is groundbreaking. And we would encourage any members of the committee if they can be down in the Bridgeport area to come and take a look. I wanna quickly summarize my written testimony and hopefully, you'll take a look at the written testimony. It's a little more, detailed. Excuse me. But I'm here to support house bill five three three seven and to request clarification of the existing language in Connecticut general statute 16 dash two fifty eight d to ensure it functions as the legislature originally intended. When the state excuse me. When the state statute was adopted in 2016, which was ten years ago, the legislature established that incentives for customers connecting to a district heating or thermal energy system should be based on the amount of natural gas demand reduced over the period that the customer commits to use the system. And that law relies on the historical gas usage, to determine how much natural gas will be avoided over time. However, during the review of the Bridgeport thermal loop under the conservation and load management program, one provision of the statute was interpreted narrowly by an outside consultant. Instead of in evaluating the total natural gas reductions over the committed life of the system, the project customers were compared to that of a single boiler replacement and limited to one year of savings. As a result, the project's incentive calculation was reduced by 44. Now this interpretation does not reflect how district thermal systems operate. These networks serve multiple buildings and reduce natural gas demand for many years, particularly during peak winter periods when the gas system is most constrained. Projects like the Bridgeport Thermal Loop use waste heat from high efficiency fuel cells to provide heating, improve system reliability, reduce peak demand on the gas system, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. HB five three three seven provides an opportunity to clarify that incentives should be based on the full committed term of natural gas reduction, and that equivalent savings should reflect total gas demand avoided over time. I hear my bell ringing. If I might, I'll end that there, but I would like to just quickly comment on commissioner Dykes written testimony. Please proceed. I wanna thank commissioner Dykes for supporting the intent of this bill, but I would note that the utilities are the ones that are currently required to do the evaluation and analysis of gas reductions under the CLM program using the established criteria. This information, once they do the evaluations, is then presented to the Energy Efficiency Board, and then they review it, and then it's passed to DEP, if you will, for a final sign off. Our projects establish the process because we have gone through it now. So any internal review by DEP staff or outside consultants should be nominal. So in essence, continuing the existing program but changing the metrics as requested under five three three seven should solve the problem. So I thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Solving the problem is exactly where I think we all wanna be at this point. I think we've been talking about the Bridgeport thermal loop for a while now. So, just to be eminently clear, you submit that if we can make those legislative adjustments that, the project will be viable and and continue to benefit Bridgeport?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yeah. The the the the

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: capital stack that was put into place for this project was based on the plain language. Okay? Of the statute in question, and the utilities did a an analysis based on the language as they understood it, as we understood it, as probably most people would understand it, came up with a number, we put that into our our capital funding stack for the project. And then having gone through the CLM process, this outside consultant took a narrow view of what the language said. So we are, if you will, short those funds.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Let me ask the hard question. What happens if we don't make that change?

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: That's a good question. I can't answer it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We'll leave it hanging out there. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, representative Baumgartner followed by representative Kreshko, who I should know. We'd always wanna talk about this. Representative Baumgart.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you, mister chair. And, briefly, could you speak to the mechanics of the how your system operates?

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: Sure. We love to talk about it. So it's a 10 megawatt fuel cell installation. The first of its time kind in the country because it is on a very, very small piece of property. So it's stacked. It's it's got floors to it like a a metal structure and on each floor, there's a certain number of fuel cells. The fuel cells produce 10 megawatts of energy that's for local distribution and we interconnect to, a substation in Bridgeport. But we take the heat off of the, the fuel cells and that goes into a piping system that has hot water in into it. That hot water is going to heat virtually every building on the University of Bridgeport Bridgeport campus, as well as the new Bassett High School. We also have an industrial customer and hopefully, over time, that piping system can be expanded to other areas of Bridgeport. So you can look at this as combined heat and power. You can look at as as district energy. This type of approach to heating is very very prevalent in Northern Europe And it it's quite an exciting

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: project. Thank you.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Representative. Representative Kreshka.

[Jeff Gross (DEEP staff)]: Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Joe Gresko]: Scott, we've been working on this for for a while, but in that ten year time frame, the technology has also expanded so that you could also provide, HVAC, air condition, as well, if I'm not mistaken.

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: That that's correct. You can use hot water through a, an HVAC system that or for for cooling. So we can also use this for air conditioning buildings as well.

[Rep. Joe Gresko]: Thank you. And, you're you're ready to go on this. Correct? I mean, groundbreaking,

[Connor Yacaitis (CT League of Conservation Voters)]: Yeah.

[Scott Gilmartin (Co‑Founder, New Power LLC)]: We're the, as a representative well, as you know, and as rep representative Steinberg knows, the fuel cell installation itself is virtually complete. The piping system from the fuel cells to the South End of Bridgeport to the campuses is done. We have begun, just begun the interconnection route to the substation. But, this should be fully operational by the fall.

[Rep. Joe Gresko]: Thank you. And, you know, in in the interest of what seems to be the overlying, feeling of, all of the above to help solve our, energy issues here in the state of Connecticut, I would hope that we would be successful in passing fifty three thirty seven and and basically take the win at this point. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. I'd go a step further. I think it's important for the state to prove out a thermal loop, kind of project because there may be other applications across the state. And we certainly have been working on this long enough, so it'd be great to get it past the finish line. We look forward to the ribbon cutting in the fall. Hopefully, everything is aligned by that point. Are there other questions or comments? If not, thank you for your testimony today. As I said before, I don't know if first selectman Bauza is available. Oh, he is. Wonderful. In person. And he will be followed by Patrick Hennessy. Good

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: afternoon, mister chairman. I I find it, you can do more damage here if you're in person than if you're online. So I like to come up when I can. I'm here to offer comments today on House Bill 5,340, and that concerning renewable power generation. And my comments are gonna be mostly in opposition to the comment, the contents of the bill. And I'm sure the question is in somebody's mind, why are you opposing the continuation of something simply carrying a program forward? There are some problems in here that I wanna talk about, but I wanna start out with something that is, something I think is a good thing to carry forward, and that is the residential renewable energy solutions program. That encourages the development of solar projects on on homes and rooftops. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a matter of public policy. I would offer two opportunities to improve upon the language of that bill. First I would I would think that it would be in the state's interests for any residential rooftop development that's happening to have the local building department report those wattage generation numbers to the state so the state can consider that in terms of whether whether we're progressing towards meeting the state's renewable energy goal. As it currently stands my building department requires a building permit for any residential solar but it does not have to report that to the state. So you guys don't actually know how well you're doing in terms of meeting the state's energy goal. And, and the other thing that I would say is, if you're gonna be using my roof to generate electricity, and I'm gonna be over generating that, I should be compensated for that because that is, that's, an earning on my property. And, and frankly, I'd like Eversource to cut me a check. That's, that's the the positive side of the bill. I have some some negatives that I'd like to talk about too. And the first is, the extension of the NRES program. What that does is it it continues to exempt from municipal taxation, large tracts of land that are commercially valuable. That's a direct hit to our municipal grand lists. That is a direct hit to our ability to fund our local services. And the state has a habit of continuing to chip away at the only means that municipalities have to fund the services that we need to provide for. If it's good public policy it should be done through either an income tax exemption or through a corporate tax exemption. It should not be done on the backs of residential taxpayers. Regarding section three, the SCF program, my opposition here is that it it will further incentivize the development of grid scale solar projects and battery storage on municipal properties or on properties located in municipalities without any municipal involvement. This is the crux of the argument that I have every single time we're in front of the siting council is that there is no opportunity for the municipality to determine its own destiny. I'm not opposed to the SCF program. I'm opposed to extending the SCF program until that problem is fixed and there is a municipal role in deciding our own destiny. In terms of the agrivoltaics section in Section six of the bill, that is also a wonderful idea in theory. But the practical reality when you talk about agrivoltaics on grid scale solar projects is inevitably the companies will put a couple of beehives on the property and call it an apiary or they will say well we're going to cohabitate sheep and goats for grazing and we're gonna call that production agriculture. If it's gonna be agrivoltaics it really should be at least 50% of the property used for agricultural purposes as defined by one dash one q. And the last thing that I want to point out is is language in line four thirty five and four thirty six and I'm going to quote it. It says that this will have no adverse environmental impact on the community. That's what the siting council is required to consider. They already have language that says that they're supposed to consider what the cumulative effect on the community is and the siting council does not consider that. This is evidenced by the draft decision for the siting council's decision in April a which is gonna be voted on in about twenty minutes. And in that draft finding, they say that, they've considered the cumulative impact of the project and the project that is looking to be expanded on, not the other six, projects that are already sited and not the thousand acres that are involved in those, in those configurations. So the siting council's already not doing what you guys tell them to do, and I see absolutely no evidence to, that they are going to change course without some sort of meaningful overhaul of that agency. So again,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I really like section one.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for focusing on the positives. And I think that's a the building department data suggestion is a great one because we could always use more quality data and see how we're doing. So, we're glad we're in alignment on that one thing. Getting back though to some of your other concerns, let me just talk about agrivovoltaics for a moment because you made a, a, an important point about how important it is to preserve true farming activity here in the state. But let me push back a little bit. Why should we be in some ways interfering with the, farm owners decision on how they wanna deploy, you know, their their activities. What's wrong with sheep or other animals being evidence of, an agricultural use to the degree that we would limit it?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Well, I think you used an important term there, and that's farm owner, because that's not the farmer. And what we're seeing in our neck of the woods, is that people who are interested in farming and agriculture are having an increased scarcity of availability, of available farmland. So when the average age of a farmer in Connecticut is over 60 years old which means half of them are older than that and you're taking more and more of the opportunity away from people to get into farming and agriculture the only thing you're left with is the landowner who is not the person who is actually working that land or preserving you know the heritage of farming and agriculture in Connecticut. I know there's other bills in the legislature right now that are talking about reforming and funding for the VOAG system and and it's it's a little bit laughable that that you guys are talking about pumping more money into VOAG and you're taking more land out of agricultural production. You know, at at some point, the the conflicting policies between, prime prime farmland preservation and energy generation have got to come back into balance and right now they are so heavily skewed one way that that balance can't even be seen you get pardon the pun but you can't separate the forest from the trees there. We need to get things realigned in such a way so that all of the state's goals are working in concert with each other instead of against each other.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I think we all agree, we want the forest and the trees and the farmland as much as we can, but we also want to help farm owners or farmers sustain their business rather than seeing a development of a 100 houses. So, striking that balance is one of our challenges. Just to your other point with regard to the signing council, as you're aware, this committee has considered a signing council bills as have any number of other committees. In fact, there I think there are a couple of them floating around this year. You know, I I think the key points you make, are not simply the resources or purview of the signing council, but they're, following the rules as we have laid out. And we appreciate that you may be ground zero for where that's not happening and, need to continue to document where they, at least in your viewpoint, are not fulfilling their obligation, of oversight. We don't necessarily have a bill focusing on that as much this year, but we do take your concerns very seriously in that regard.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: To follow-up on that point if I could representative, I would reference you to 16 dash 50 x sub d. And what that says is that when there is an application submitted to the siting council within within a fixed period of time a local planning and zoning commission can put in place a regulate and restrict order on that proposal in the decision that is going to be voted on by the siting council in the next nineteen minutes. They are going to say that the statute actually doesn't say that planning and zoning can do that when the plain reading of the language says specifically that we can take that action. We have taken that action and they simply don't like that we did and so they're saying that they don't have to follow it. Strong statement, but I will make it stronger if I wasn't on the record. And

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Strong statement, but

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I will make it stronger if I wasn't on the record.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. In any case, in twenty minutes, we may be looking at, legislative clarity and perhaps, greater oversight in that regard. Representative Foster, no surprise there.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I love surprising my colleagues and doing exactly what they expect me to do. Hi, First Selectman Bauza. It's nice to have you here.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Thank you, representative. It's nice to see you.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: We have a long history of conversations related to this topic

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: that I don't know that everyone is quite privy to.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: So would you mind giving me your thirty five second highlight reel of the biggest issues that are posed in the town of East Windsor by the grid scale solar facilities that have been cited there to date?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: So we got my thirty five minute rundown of the solar problem. Got it.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thirty five seconds not minute.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I'm still hearing minutes. So yeah. Well we have a number of them first of all as we have the super saturation of the approval of these projects in one town which is clearly out of balance in terms of any type of equity or parity you're ever going to see. We've had issues pertaining to persistent and unremitting noise that is seemingly the purview of nobody to enforce where these projects make a high pitched buzzing sound any time the sun is out any time of the year. And it has it's intrusive on residential homeowners it's intrusive on families and children and there seems to be nobody who's willing to take ownership of addressing the underlying concerns of that. We have had issues where there have been fires that have broken out with with no clearly determined root causes as of this point in time and therefore no no real means of having fixed the underlying problem and only limited accountability. We have had problems associated with taxation we have had problems association associated with the loss of farmland. We have had problems, considering the, lack of any interest in several branches of government as to the municipal interest in in the development, or lack of development of any more of these in the municipality. So this this has been a huge problem as you know, from many, many different perspectives.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I think people think that it sounds like an exaggeration for you or I to say that this is easily the biggest headache that we face as elected officials in our communities. It's the thing that we hear about the most and I think that oftentimes people think that our constituents are bringing up NIMBY concerns. Not in my backyard. I don't want that problem in my community but what is really happening is one community has all of the problems. We are the testing ground for what I have been calling the green halo effect of solar and renewable. We we both are saying we support solar. I I have solar on my roof. Many of these neighbors do. We support solar development. We support meeting our green energy goals. We wanna mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We support these goals. However, one community in the state bears a disproportionate burden and that means that one of the one of the most economically challenged school districts, an Alliance School District in Connecticut, has less tax generated on these highly profitable facilities and they seem largely unaccountable. I wanna ask you about recently, we had a solar on a specific facility and then, a wildlife nuisance concern in another facility. I want to ask if you could sort of give a summary about how easily or not easily we have been able to engage with the developers when there's a problem and if the siting council is helping us when they have approved a facility, we have no control or regulation and then we can't get in touch with the developer, is the Siding Council in a timely manner supporting the project that they approved?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Oh, absolutely, they are not. I will tell you, pertinent to where the parcel where we had the fire, and that is also the source of of persistent noise, noise issues that that vex this poor neighborhood. The we had the site encounter or the, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Nextera, their lobbyists, a number of other public officials physically out to the site. This was in August 2024, and they promised the sun, the moon and the stars as to how they were going to address the problem. As you may recall, you were thought to be in an endangered seat that point in time, and they simply were trying to wait you out. And lo and behold, you're still here, and they disavowed ever even having the meeting with 15 witnesses in place, including, including their government relations person, disavowed that it even happened. So, they are adamantly not interested in addressing the municipality's concerns, and, and we have no recourse. We were, we're looking for a remedy that actually addresses the concerns that you and I hear all the time. And for anybody who's in elective office anybody who's sitting at this table or in the audience who may be an elected official I think you all can appreciate that when a constituent comes to you with an issue and you tell them there's nothing else I can do, the message that is heard by the constituent and messages defined by the receiver, the message that is heard by that constituent is I don't wanna help you with your problem. Not that I actually am not able to do it. Not that I have exhausted every available avenue several times over. What they are hearing from from me when I say there's nothing more that I can do, they're hearing that I'm not interested or that I don't want to help them, and it couldn't be further from the truth. There's just no other means

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: to do it.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Has the town of East Windsor spent their own money in taxpayer dollars trying to address this issue in their community?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Absolutely. We've spent $60,000 of local taxpayer dollars that will not be reimbursed by the siting council. As of you know the next sixteen minutes on the application in front of the siting council for April a. We're gonna spend more money on appeal. And if we have to go beyond the superior court into the appellate court we're gonna have to spend more local dollars on that. But the judicial branch seems to be the only available remedy to solve this issue for us locally.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: You'll have to clarify for me because I seem to be forgetting but I thought that the developer had to pay for your legal fees according to legislation that we passed two years ago.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yes. But the counsel for the siting counsel determined that because the four ninety two a application is an amendment to an existing petition rather than the underlying petition itself that that particular statute did not apply to us.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: So did they pay for your legal fees in the first application.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: They did not.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Why is that.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I was never properly notified by the siting council as to the availability of that and they're required by statute to notify the municipalities, my understanding.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: And they spelt your email wrong. Is that correct?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yes. That is what happened.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thank you. No further questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Wow. We could do better. It's clearly. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you so much, mister chair. Thank you for coming before us. I have a feeling that you'll come before us again later when we talk at our next public hearing. But I did have a chance to visit your town and did a little tour. And I think that seeing maybe is believing, understanding some of the strains and stresses that you are dealing with. I want to focus on, because obviously, the safety and stuff we'll deal with in a public hearing later and citing council we're not necessarily dealing with today. But I hear you and I understand that those are big concerns that you have. But let's talk about the agrivoltaics.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yes.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: And so it sounds like the the farmlands that you have now are that are being converted over to solar, are they are they being considered agrivoltaic or is this just gonna be.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I'm not I don't recall if this particular petition has an agrivoltaics component. I can tell you that there are other already cited projects in East Windsor that employ the notion of agrivoltaics, and they, you know, they have a, you know, small herd of sheep that comes and grazes on the property a couple times a year, or they'll put beehives on the property and call it an apiary. That is, in a former life, I was the chief of staff at the Connecticut Department of Agriculture. That is not what the intention of agrivoltaics is. Agrivoltaics is supposed to be a balance. It's supposed to be a means of co using the property, not having agriculture be an afterthought to the commercial enterprise.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Here's my issue with what's going on. I mean, I try to take a look at it holistically, right? So you've got people that own the land, and they're trying to figure out the best use, you know, in it's their property, what what should they do with it? Obviously, they're getting more money off of solar than they are off of renting their land out and having it be used for agriculture. So if we're going to really kind of focus in on how we balance that, is there some something else maybe, you know, if we're looking at this bill here, is there some other incentive we should be using or taking incentives away to make sure that that balance goes more towards, supporting agriculture? Well, I think Do you understand what I'm saying? I mean, like, we're we're truly looking at it economically. You can't really say to a land owner, you know, oh, you can't rent your property out for a a higher bidder anymore, right? So they're losing money, in support of, you know, the the look and feel of the town and I understand, you know, certainly the safety concerns around solar, but how do we kinda make them whole as well?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: So first of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time and doing the due diligence to come up and see for yourself. It is a seeing to believing thing, so thank you for doing that. Secondly, if I could, in our in our case, much of the property that is either under consideration for solar development or already in solar development is the property of the Catholic Church. It's it's not individual property owners. It's the Catholic Church. And so, they lease out these properties for forty years, fifty years, however long, and it really isn't impactful on them as an entity. But for forty years, I'm gonna be dead in forty years. That's, you know, almost actuarially proven, and, you know, so, it is it is world changing for people, but for the for the Catholic Church who is the major property owner where these projects are being developed, it's a blink in time. The Catholic church is 2,000 years old. So they can lend something out for forty years, and it is what it is. It's a business deal. So this isn't this is not farm owners or or this is not farmers that are being displaced, it's land owners. And the land owners in and you have to do some due diligence, but it's a corporate enterprise.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay. Give me just a second. There was one other thing I wanted to One of the other points in this, I think, is that the land couldn't have been cleared before use is, I guess, is to protect the forestry. But isn't this, isn't it correct that, you know, as I kinda drove through, it looked like there was a lot of land clearing going on in your area to make room for solar panels.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: So I don't know when you drove through but

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: There were logs down all over the place in one of the areas.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Thrawl Road? Okay. That's a smaller one. That's that's, that's only three or four megawatts, it's about 30 acres. If you were to look at some of the larger scale ones. So for example, the one that's gonna be approved in six minutes, that is going to take up another 350 acres. That is just a tremendous amount of property. Now some of that is existing farmland and that's attractive because it's cheap it's clear it's flat it's already available for development but it's taking away the highest and best use which is to use it for prime farmland and for agricultural development and it's permanently changing that use. And I say that it's permanently changing because these companies are gonna come before you and inevitably, they're gonna say, it's a twenty year project with a twenty year option, and then we'll put it back into farmland, which has never once ever happened, because they can't demonstrate a single instance anywhere where that has happened. So, and even if they could, forty years of taking prime farmland soil and not using it for agricultural production materially changes the class of classification of that soil until the next glacier comes through. That that is what it takes in order to restore that. So it isn't a short term use where they can they can, locate this and then take it out because there's gonna be all kinds of of, trenching, there's gonna be all kinds of compaction, there's gonna be all kinds of grading that are materially impacting the land forever.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: So one of the things that's not mentioned in here are the the tax incentives that are given to solar farms, do you think that maybe that could be added in here? Because my understanding, if you have if you have a farm and they build infrastructure on the farm, then then the property is gonna be assessed and then it's an increase in your grand list. But if you have a solar farm and they put panels on the solar farm that doesn't count to your grand list. Is that correct.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yeah that's the effect of the uniform capacity tax change but that doesn't take effect until 07/01/2026. And there is an opinion amongst the Connecticut assessors association that in that language there was confusion as to the grand list year versus the fiscal year and that grid scale solar projects inadvertently I think were, exempted from municipal taxation in the f in the $25 last year. Exempted. All of them.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Right.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: That didn't have a stabilization agreement in place.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you so much. I think there's a a lot more that we probably have to dig into, but maybe we'll hit some of this next time.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I really appreciate it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. We we we do wanna make sure we address the interpretation of the exemption, and it is something we will look at. I never thought we'd be talking about the Catholic church in this committee. I'm used to it in public health, but not so much here. We have a very ecumenical approach, but,

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I'm trying to talk about the siting council in front of the kids committee. That's like my goal for the session. We're gonna do it everywhere.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: In any case, you bring up a good point. And and we recognize that your town is ground zero for a a lot of beta testing, a lot of experimentation. I guess we could declare you Solartown, Connecticut. I'm not sure that would make a Helloween's difference, but

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: We would reject that moniker.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You wouldn't? Okay. I thought you could use it as a marketing tool.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: No. No. Okay.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: In any case, thank you for your testimony. You give us real insights into facts on the ground with some of the programs you're trying to put together. We really appreciate it.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I appreciate your time and for hearing me out. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. Next up, we have, Patrick Hennessy followed by Kendall Keelan.

[Patrick Hennessy (Milford resident)]: Thank you to the Energy and Technology Committee. I appreciate your time. My name is Patrick Hennessy. I'm a Milford resident. I oppose HB 5,339. Although I'm a 100% in favor of streamlining the approval process for rooftop solar. I feel that a study on the permitting and inspection process is unnecessary. We already know that there is a need to make the process shorter and there is no need for a costly study to determine this. I support the use of online resources, such as solar app plus to dramatically cut down on the time necessary for municipalities to approve residential solar projects. But I really don't want the taxpayers to foot the bill for a study that will only slow down the process toward quicker approvals. There's really no need for the study. There's no need to wait. SolarAPP plus is already in place at some Connecticut municipalities. Thank you for your time.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you so much, Patrick. Anybody have any questions? Oh, I don't have a I don't have a computer open to this right now. Okay. Do we have anybody online with their hand raised? I gotta get I don't think so.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: They they can yell if they are. I appreciate your time. Next up is Keelan Kendall followed by Christy Prescott. Keelan?

[Kendall Keelan (Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Hi. Yes.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Hello. Thank you. You're up.

[Kendall Keelan (Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Good afternoon, co chairs, vice chairs, ranking members, and members of the Energy and Technology Committee. My name is Kendall Keelan, and I am a staff attorney speaking on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation. CLF is a regional environmental nonprofit that uses science based legal advocacy to facilitate a just transition to a clean energy economy. CLF submitted written testimony and provides the following statements in support of sections two, four, five, and seven of house bill five three four zero, which would advance solar adoption in Connecticut while making energy more affordable. The freezing temperatures and heavy snowfall we experienced this winter increased electricity demand, spiked regional and oil and gas consumption, and in turn customer bills. As the state prepares for more extreme weather to come, Connecticut must also reconcile its high electricity prices. Connecticut residents pay 40% more for their electricity than the average customer in this country. And more than 426,000 households in Connecticut cannot afford their energy bills, with nearly half of those households spending 19% of their annual income. And that is due to the state's dependence on oil and gas. Connecticut residents want reliable ways to keep their costs low and their power on. Solar power has proven it can do just that. Small scale solar saved customers more than $19,000,000 regionally during last year's June heat wave. More Connecticut residents could access these savings through House Bill 5,340. Sections five and seven of this legislation exemplify how. Connecticut homes often require electrical system upgrades and building repairs before installing rooftop solar. Upfront costs of these upgrades and solar equipment do remain high, which prevent many customers from accessing their benefits. Section five would eliminate interconnection agreements and fees for plug in solar devices, which plug directly into outlets and immediately feed energy into homes. Section seven creates a pilot program to install residential solar systems at low or no cost to households located in environmental justice communities. These provisions make clean and affordable energy more accessible by removing barriers like high upfront costs, which often exclude renters and low income residents from rooftop solar. As the federal government takes unprecedented steps to thwart clean energy development, Connecticut must step up. We cannot expect to alleviate high energy costs in the long term by continuing to invest in the various systems that spike our bills. CLF strongly urges the committee to advance sections two, four, five, and seven of house bill five three four zero to make clean and affordable energy more accessible. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you so much. Does I'm I'm still trying to log on. Does anybody have any questions? Not seeing anybody. Thank you for your testimony. Chrissy Prescott followed by Mike Trahan.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: So, good afternoon. Nice to see you all again. My name is Christy Prescott and I'm the Vice President of Regulatory for United Illuminating. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on three bills on today's agenda. The first is RAISE Bill 5,340. UI has been actively engaged in the development of Connecticut's renewable energy successor program through PURA's docket 02/50214. The successor program design work underway and the docket is comprehensive and includes an assessment of cost effectiveness, setting considerations, customer participation trends, and long term rate impacts. As drafted, the bill establishes annual budgets of $25,000,000 per year for the NRE successor, 16,000,000 per year for the SCF successor and the RS successor has no budget cap. I think it's important to look at the whole lifetime cost of the budgets established in this bill, which is in fact, close to $11,000,000,000 It's not just the annual budget, but rather the annual budget for ten selection years. And then each project selected annually is, is awarded a twenty year tariff rate. And those costs flow through the public benefits. Charge. So, we do encourage legislature to allow PURA successor program process to run its course for specific details, regarding the final decisions in the bill, and that would be informed by transparent analysis and stakeholder input and full understanding of ratepayer implications. Next, for raise bill 5,337, this proposal would create an energy efficiency incentive that's a departure from the annual incentive process to a lifetime incentive process for customers connected to district heating. The calculation of the lifetime savings incentive is rare and it would change the currently established $4 per CCF annual incentive that was extensively examined and just recently approved by the Energy Efficiency Board in DEEP. Our internal calculations estimate that changing from annual to lifetime would potentially double that incentive amount from approximately $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 and we feel that this change is unnecessary given the recent evaluation and termination by the EAB in DEEP. The third bill is raised bill three twenty. UI is supportive of the formation of a working group regarding transmission facilities to grid capacity planning. The degree of complexity of the subject matter and potential for overlap with processes subject to federal jurisdiction over transmission participation by both technical and policy experts for the EDCs. And we also suggest an offer to include ISO New England who may also support the development for better and more actionable information. Specifically, subsection B1, we support that would require the working group to examine inefficiencies or lack of coordination between state agencies that would contribute to delay that could contribute to delays in the siting of electric transmission as siting of transmission projects currently take upwards of ten years. We also support subsection B2 which calls for examination of grid enhancement and points of interconnection to allow increased deployment of distributed generation. We suggest that the working group participants include EDC system planners who have expertise in this highly complex area. And we also note that subsection B3 seeks an examination of federal jurisdictional transmission rates by considering cost sharing and cost shifting mechanisms for transmission improvements. Studying these topics and understanding the options of the state in a FERC regulated process would be helpful to evaluate options in this area. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Christie. Representative.

[Rep. (Unidentified committee member)]: Thank you very much, mister chair. And thank you for coming out to testify today. I'm interested to hear some more on, HB fifty three forty. You know, these tariff programs like the to my understanding, typically how they work is, I'm a small business, I wanna throw some solar up on my roof, I wanna get some help from the state. And so, I go into this program, I bid a certain amount that I'm gonna get back on that excess energy, I mean, it creates a competitive process that hopefully keeps costs reasonable to rate payers. My understanding is that this legislation would kind of change that, where we would be having PURA set a certain rate. So have we seen any other states do this type of action and if so have we seen costs on rate payers increase.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: Thank you for that question. I think you heard Mr. Belden speak previously from Eversource and he was mentioning some of the work that they've done in Massachusetts under what they call the Mass Smart Program.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Mhmm.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: And, you know, he indicated that there's a set rate. We've we've had success in Connecticut with competitive procurements. I myself personally have been involved in the development and the administration of these programs for almost fifteen years, starting with the LRAC ZRAC program that was enacted or enabled under Public Act eleven eighty. That program had kind of an $8,000,000 budget per year for what we call the LRAC and the ZRec program. And then you know, the successor to that program was the NRES, which we're still in the middle of, obviously, getting towards the end of the authorized life of that program. And that, again, is also competitive. The NRES program is different than the LREC, ZREC program. Programs have made some improvements and and wanted to hit different goals. In the origination of the programs, it kind of started saying, any solar, anywhere, good, we want that. And then we've thought about how to take citing considerations into account or to to incentivize different programs in different areas of the state. And so, I think there have been improvements and I think certainly, the PURA is looking at continuing to do those and you've heard a lot of that discussed today.

[Rep. (Unidentified committee member)]: Thank you. Yeah, of course, the public benefits charges all the buzz right now, and it's really incumbent on us to ensure that we're not imposing any additional costs on our rate payers. So, it's something that I would like to see worked on in this legislation to ensure that we're not doing the very opposite of what we've pledged to do up here, which is public benefits charge and the impact on on the people who are paying energy bills in Connecticut. So thank you very much for your testimony.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You're welcome.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Myra.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you so much for your testimony. You kind of jumped through the, the first section a little quick. I think, I think you said $11,000,000,000

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: I did.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Can you please explain that number to me again?

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: Sure. I'm glad it grabs your attention. So as I understand it, the legislation provides $25,000,000 for NRES per year and $16,000,000 per year for shared clean energy or SCF. So if you take $25,000,000 multiply that for ten procurement years, that's $250,000,000 and the $16,000,000 for ten procurement years, dollars 160,000,000. You add those together and you multiply those by twenty years that those projects are eligible for those rates, you get to close around $8,400,000,000 or so, or $8,000,000,000 And then as a reminder, the RS has no budgetary cap. And so very conservatively, I just thought about where RS uptake might take their smaller projects. There's not as many projects, therefore therefore you don't pay as much. They don't generate as much. They get paid on a megawatt hour or kilowatt hour basis. And so I just added some dollars to that. And our further testimony goes through how I made that calculation. But that's how we got there.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Yeah, that's a shock. So we're still not finished with the in res program and our res program as we have it now. In my understanding, you still have procurement out there for that or you've you're finishing up with procurement. And where are we with cost with what you still may add on Sure. With what you already have with solar?

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: Sure. You are correct. We're in year five of six six years that we're authorized, the program. I've been using the word like horizon cost because like when you look at how the costs have rolled into actual rates, we don't pay an upfront incentive for these programs. We pay for them when they go in service, and then that twenty year tariff timeline begins at the time they go in service and they begin paying. We have many projects that have been selected in the last we're now just in the year five. So in the last four years of procurement, many are not in service. And so you're not starting to see those in your rates, but we're looking at, just for UI alone, somewhere around $600,000,000 plus for what we're calling Horizon. What we've committed to today, not even including the next two years of procurement that will at some point come on to the bills. Just for the NRES and shared clean energy that have been selected to date, that doesn't include the RRES numbers to date.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay, and legislatively, you'll be able to get those costs back on the public benefits.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: I'm sorry, I couldn't

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: hear you.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Legislatively, you'll be able to get those costs back on the public benefits charge.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: Yes, correct. As the cost recovery language in the statute says that it can be recovered through a fully reconciling component of the bill which has been through the public benefits, specifically what's called the non by passable, federally mandated congestion charge.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay. So if we were to look at bringing that 11,000,000,000 down a little bit, do you have some suggestions?

[Kate Donnelly (Chair, Hampton Green Energy Committee)]: Well,

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: I wanted to share the amounts with you, not because we don't support clean energy. We wanted to prepare and show you the amounts because I think it's important to see the whole universe of what we're talking about through programs. I do support competitive procurements, as I mentioned earlier. We've had great success, I believe, with competitive procurements. We have had some attrition, certainly. Projects don't move forward, but it isn't always because they're not affordable. Sometimes deals fall apart, supplies fall apart, timelines don't work out. So I would be suggesting competitive procurements. I would also suggest that establishing the programs that have price caps, meaning the high establishing price caps, which historically, PURA has set, but they've set through kind of an administrative process where all participants have an opportunity to look, to make recommendations and comment on those, which I think every year those

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: continue.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Alright. Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Anyone else? Thank you.

[Christy Prescott (VP, Regulatory, United Illuminating)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I don't see anybody online. Nope. Next up is Mike Trahan followed by Jeff Jeff Hinsky.

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: Senator. Good morning. Good afternoon. Members of the committee. My name is Mike Trahan with Connecticut solar Storage Association. Our 2,200 members of our, Connecticut workforce are responsible for large percentage of the 2,000 megawatts that have installed, in solar, here in the state of Connecticut. We, we have two bills, on your agenda for which we have an interest, house bill five, three, three, nine and five three, four zero. You've got my written testimony. I'll supply some quick outline of those, five, three, three, nine is the study of how municipalities permit solar at the, at the local level homes, residential solar. We don't have any objections, to the bill. Really. We have some suggested language change, in line two that would include, the, the language referring to rooftop solar systems, not ground mount residential solar systems and also include solar plus storage systems. We've got a list of data points that deep could collect. There are some serious, variations the way solar gets permitted at the local level. We'd like to see some uniformity there. We think we can bring some savings to homeowners if that were to happen. We think that all of this information, these data points collected, that DEEP would not have to do that on their own. Our members have all those data points already. They've expressed an interest in working with DEEP or whoever to provide that data to them to help streamline the process. The governor's bill, five zero three six, we support that as well. We think the two could work in tandem. In fact, I understand that deep is not enthusiastic about performing, the study that's not funded, by the budget. So we would suggest a working group, made up of Green Bank staff, our members, building officials, and others to see if we can come up with some, common solutions. On five three four zero, which is the, successor tariff, bill largely. There's been a lot spoken about today about the value of solar. It's very difficult for, for the, for us to, to be out there and try and justify the, the programs without a real firm handle on the cost and benefits. Right now, there was a, there was a study called for by Deepenpura five years ago. The study was done, it was open ended. It was, thought to have been, improved and, added to as the years go by, that hasn't happened. That's, we're very disappointed that that hasn't, there is some language in 05/03, 04/00, that would, that would push us closer to that area. We've got some ideas to share on that. The bill itself has some, timeline flaws and in terms of when the current programs end and when the new programs would start, we've got language, there. We, on the commercial side, we really feel strongly about the retention of the buy all option for commercial systems. 80% of systems installed, have been installed under the buy all. If that, if we were to go to netting only in commercial, that would present, some serious issues for us. There's a consumer protection task force called for in line 335. Similar task force was called for last year and the year before that. A number of our members, were vetted, and, and appointed to that task force. Any new task force that takes that goes into effect after this, we would ask just ask for those members to be, added to that task force. That's all I have.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Mike. Representative, mister chairman.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, Mike, for your testimony today. Obviously, well, let's talk first about, the buy all option that you alluded to. Can you explain a little further why that's so critical?

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: Yeah, sure. So it is, you know, consumer or commercial customers, and, and Jeff Hinsky, was a member of our advisory board is gonna follow me testimony. He's, he's really an expert on the bio system. So I'll, I'll let him get into the details, but I would, I would only mention that, it has proven to be the favored, option of consumer of a commercial businesses seems to make sense for them. The overwhelming number of pursuit by all, I, I believe it was the, the bill's drafters, decision to move in this direction, unlike what per had called for, I believe. So I'm not sure if that was a drafting error for there, or if there's some preference by the committee, to see that, that the by all is, is done away with on the commercial side, but, but we wanted to come here and tell you how important it is to that side of the business.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We will talk about that further. There are a number of things in this bill, which are intended to provoke, good dialogue, so perhaps that's one of them. Let's talk about the successor program and the tariffs to date. A lot of what we asked PURA to look at a couple years ago when they've come back and their recommendations were process related, and the ability for us to move projects forward, efficiently and ideally, fairly expeditiously as well. You've helped us try to understand some of the existing flaws or ways which we can improve them. And one of the things that I believe you brought up was the administration of tariffs in the state of Connecticut. Is there an alternative way for us to look at

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: that? Well, there was, yeah. And I'm not sure if it was last year or the year before that was there was legislation, that allowed PERA to, determine who would administer the programs. If it determine who would administer the programs. If it, if it wasn't utilities, maybe it would be somebody else. So I know that that was, that was thrown out there. We were asked at the time what we thought about that, and, and we felt comfortable at the time, that the, that the utilities were doing what they could.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Still feel that's the case?

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: I'm I'm running that through my

[Charles Rothenberger (Director of Government Relations, Save the Sound)]: head right now.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Okay. So the boss was pregnant.

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: Yeah. Well, so I mean, it it one could question whether a for profit company or companies, who administer a portion who administer programs, which generate no revenue oh, excuse me, generate no profits for them, whether or not the programs they administer, represent a high priority. I'm

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: not, I'm trying

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: to say that as diplomatically as we, we, we work very closely with utilities with, with UI and Eversource and interconnection issues, especially, and, and we're, we're inching towards, some success. We had 44 different issues brought before, per docket twenty five zero one two seven, which was the, the sprint docket. And most of those 44 recommendations that we brought forward and as far as making the interconnection process better, I think we've I think we've made some headway there. But, you know, I was I was talking back and forth with one of my members earlier today. He he got a quote for a transformer upgrade last year for $4,000 and came back. Now the updated price is over $12,000 So there are there are some costs associated with development that that that are that are out of the hands of developers, to interconnect tying to the grid, that those costs are, are rising incredibly at a, at a fast, at a fast pace, the cost of studies, distribution and transmission studies runaway cycle there, and and higher than what we understand to be are in other states. So, we understand for the programs to be successful for the long term, we have to drive down costs. If we can drive down costs, we can have a smaller footprint as a public benefit charge on the bill. And that's what that's that's important to us. We understand the importance and and the emphasis being placed on that right now. But so, we need to work closer. We need to work harder. We need to have, I

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: think it would it would be as administers administrators of the program, I think it would be wholly reasonable to see that utilities came to this committee or or some committee here to talk about what they did in the prior year to help drive down the cost of solar development here.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: That's an interesting point. I think what you described, I won't get into the, basis for which some of these project costs are determined, but, that there's I understand there's no real appeal process for you or any way for you to challenge the, the the the charges?

[Mike Trahan (Executive Director, Connecticut Solar & Storage Association)]: Well, there is. We've we've been successful. I mean, we're we're put in a situation where whenever we have we come into a disagreement with utilities on interconnection or or other issues, there are there's an ombudsman process. But prior to that, we've been motioning to PERA, that we have disagreements the way the utilities are are are are administering the program certain instances. PERA has agreed with us in certain times and PERA has not. So there is, there is an avenue to do this, but I mean, the costs associated with solar development in the state are increasingly faster. Something needs to be done about that. We need, we need to have greater insight and transparency of, of the cost that utilities, what their cost is on these. I think that that's an appropriate step. I think that would help us plan better for future, lower cost projects.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. It's something we'll look into. We we will read your your comments on the legislation before us, closely. Other questions or comments? If not, we'll we'll be talking further. Thank you, Mike. You alright? Go ahead.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And thank you, Mike. Next up is chef Hinsky followed by Michael Delagawa.

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yep.

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: Thanks. Thank you for some opportunity to speak today. Co chairs Needleman and Steinberg, ranking members Fazio, Mara, and all the distinguished members of the energy and technology committee, I appreciate your time and attention for a few brief comments. I'm Jeff Hinske. I'm the vice president of policy and marketing at GreenSky's Clean Energy. GreenSky's is a commercial and industrial solar developer headquartered in North Haven, Connecticut. We have over a 120 employees. The majority of them are based in Connecticut and are, you know, paying taxes and earning income based on the projects that we build in Connecticut. We have more than a 150 projects right now in operation within Connecticut, representing more than a 100 megawatts of capacity. With the support of the programs that have been initiated through this committee over the years, both LRAC, ZREC, and now NRES and SCF, we have driven over 250,000,000 of investment in the state for these projects in the past fifteen years. I'm here today to express our general support of HB fifty three forty. There are a few items that we think need to be addressed and certainly open to discussions more broadly about administratively set versus bidding programs as well. One is this was mentioned already by mister Trahan. The timelines are too extended. Basically, if implemented at on the timelines as in the bill, 2028 will be a dead year. There won't be any new projects initiated in 2028 because there just isn't the the timeline, to get anything done. Secondly, the requirement to have full permitting and interconnection approval will be problematic unless there is associated interconnection process improvements. We've already talked about that a little bit, but we're already experiencing this to a degree. The school carve out portion of the NRES program does require interconnection approval, and we have more than three megawatts of school based projects that are basically waiting for interconnection approval before we can even submit into the program. A third item, the BIO, again, as mentioned by mister Trahan, is an important aspect of the, the NRIS program. I in the interest of time, I'm not gonna go into a lot of details unless you you'd like me to. But, fundamentally, there for many commercial projects, there is what they call the split incentive problem in where the building owner has no real incentive to add solar to a site because the tenant is paying the electric bills. And so a bio configuration allows the owner of the building, even if they are not the the tenant to to benefit from installing solar on their parking lots and rooftops. That's my general comments. I'd be happy to discuss further. I also have a few answers to some of the things that were brought up earlier by some of the other representatives, and I can get go into those if you'd like, but I don't wanna spend my time doing it if if they're gonna use up my three minutes.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, I think you used it well enough to provoke some questions, so we'll start with that. First of all, you may have mentioned that you expect or anticipate that by 2028, there'll be virtually no projects in the queue. Could you elaborate for a moment on that?

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: Yeah. Tied to the the fact that, you know, by the time this program or this successor program would really be, rolled out and we would understand all of the rules, including incentive rates and things like that, we likely would not have any projects available to submit it to the program in the, you know, the very last half of 2028. You know, the the larger programs, anyway, or or projects are you know, these are two, three, some cases, four year endeavors. And, you know, without knowing any of the details about how this is gonna be structured, you you know, we'd be basically having, you know, these future projects sort of on hold until we know what we're what we're looking at.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So if we're able to pass legislation this year, which, extends the, existing programs or offers a successor program that would, take effect upon expiration of these programs? Would that be sufficient, do you think, to maintain

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: Yeah. But, yeah, that definitely would be helpful in that, you know, the current programs, at least we know the structure and the general universe we're participating in. So in that regard, if we have projects that could still be viable in 2028 under the old programs, we certainly would be doing it. You know, there is the the under the other headwind is the federal rules. Large projects after 2028 are going to be much more complicated for lack of a better word given the the sun setting of the ITC. So, you know, over the next couple of years, we're in pretty good shape because we were able to safe harbor and and lock in these federal incentives. But, you know, in the over the next two to three years, they're gonna run out.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. I'm one for hoping that by 2028, we have a different federal policy

[Jeff Gross (DEEP staff)]: that One that will allow

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: you One can hope.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: To do the good work. Alright. You you you you tempted us. You say you have answers. We like answers. If you if you wanna

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: comment Yeah. Senator Fazio asked about states that have administratively set incentive structures or, we have solar programs. Massachusetts once brought up, they do have an administratively set program. It's a very complicated program with base rates plus adders or subtractors depending on locations and size and what programs you're participating in. It is a relatively attractive pro program, but it is complicated to work through. The other side of the equation would be a state like New Jersey. New Jersey has basically a fixed rate. And right now, I think it's 8¢ kilowatt hour for all commercial solar, no matter what kind of program you're participating in, whether you're doing net metering or not net metering. And they just have an annual capacity cap, and so they have you know, they know the incentive. They know the capacity. That's their their budget. New York's version is a little different, but, again, it's all administratively set. There's no bidding directly. You have kind of an upfront rebate. And then the other part of their program, which goes a little bit to some of the discussions on how do you value export, they have a complex calculation that they call VDER, the value of distributed energy resources that basically gives you a not an hourly, but a a monthly value of energy for exports. And so theirs is well administratively set. It's kind of a combination of both market based energy plus an upfront rebate. So the other comment that was brought up here, I'm gonna look at my notes. Oh, they it related the value of export, if we wanna go to an extreme kind of example of it is California's what they call NEM three, their net metering three tariffs, value exports on an hourly basis by month. And so 3PM on Thursday in July will have a different value than 3PM on Thursday in August, which is different than 3PM in September. And every year, those values change, and so you basically you know, they basically are addressing the duck curve. If you are exporting middle of the day in California in the in the spring or summer, your value of your exports are effectively zero. It's like 1¢ a kilowatt hour. On the other hand, a late afternoon export, five, 6PM, you know, in the fall, your value of your exports are $12.13 cents a kilowatt hour potentially. And so this really is incentivizing battery. So that's an extreme of, you know, a very complex export, scenario. I'm not sure that I would advocate for going something that far. But, you know, there are mechanisms that you can really try to make the incentives align with what we're trying to do from a policy perspective. And then the one other comment I'd just add is the SCAF or the value the the the rate paid to SCAF or NRES for that matter, you know, the the representative from Eversource said, you know, the 18¢ or whatever the value is. I don't I don't doubt that that's the the average value. That does include the rec value where the wholesale energy prices that he talked about do not include the rec value. And so the RECs are somewhere in the, you know, three and a half to four and a half cents a kilowatt hour rate. And so you would deduct that off of the SCUF if you wanted to do a true apples to apples. So just add that as a a comment as well.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. That was helpful. You made passing reference to storage.

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Where do you see storage factoring in going forward, given costs and the ability to make projects even more beneficial?

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: Yes. Store storage is as currently structured in Connecticut, storage doesn't pencil ever right off the bat, if you will. It it's the you know, they're getting closer. The rate storage is becoming cheaper. The incentive program is okay. You know, it's not over over the top. It does have a relatively small capacity. Where so from an economic point of view, where storage really starts to matter is when you have these highly differentiated rates either for export or otherwise or and or high demand charges. You know, on a on a commercial rate, if you have a very high demand chart, then it makes sense to put in storage and you you don't care about the energy arbitrage. You care about reducing your peak demand or, again, hardly highly differentiated rates between on peak, off peak. That's where storage really starts to make, you know, a strong economic case. You know, and this starts to get into the much more complicated discussion of what is the value distributed energy. Well, storage is very valuable in the evenings when you have a duck curve kind of consumption pattern. And so, you know, it's it's more and more it's it's gonna be coming more and more. It's becoming more and more valuable. In Connecticut, in the rate structures in Connecticut, it's probably marginal at this point from an economic point of view.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: It's something we're gonna look at, and I think those economics are gonna change. But I think you also raise an interesting point. We talk a lot about prioritizing projects on the basis of efficiency or rate payer benefit. Maybe we should also be making at least a cursory effort to prioritize on the basis of distributed generations benefit to rate payers more broadly. So that's something else we'll take a look at. Other questions or comments? If not, thank you for your testimony. It was very helpful today. Thank you. I hope you will continue to participate as we try to hone in on what we want to accomplish this session.

[Jeff Hinske (VP Policy & Marketing, GreenSky’s Clean Energy)]: We'd be happy to. Thanks.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Excuse me. Mike Michael Delagala followed by Matt Kirby.

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Good afternoon, chairmans, ranking members, and distinguished members of the Energy and Technology Committee. My name is Mike Delagala. I am the founder and CEO of Solar Collective Agrivoltaics. Solar Collective is an originator, developer, and owner operator of small scale farm saving agrivoltaics projects across Massachusetts. I'm here today in strong support of House Bill five three four zero. In particular, we support, the development of EBSR NRES and SCF successor plans, as outlined in the PURA study, as well as the implementation of an Ag First agrivoltaics program. Implementing an Ag First agrivoltaics program is not only a means to preserve Connecticut farmland and keep its farmers farming for future generations, it is also an opportunity to bolster the state's $4,000,000,000 Ag industry, while at the same time increasing the state's food and nutrition security, and providing locally generated clean electricity to its communities. The primary goal of a successful agrivoltaic program is to ensure that the land currently in ag production remains in ag production. This can only happen when true partnerships are formed between project developer and farmer. Solar Collective is partnered with 30 farmers in Massachusetts to provide agrivoltaic projects on their farms. Our relationships with our farmers are the single most important part of the job. Without this foundational relationship, there is no chance to save even a single acre of farmland. We focus on small scale projects because we want our farmers to realize meaningful economics on the smallest viable footprint. A typical solar collective project in Massachusetts is built on just 5% of the farm's total acreage and results in a 60% increase in the annual revenue to the farm. That is life changing farm saving money. The impact of the farmer's revenue earned on the Agrivoltaic project is not only limited to the footprint of the project, it increases values. Sorry, it increases value across the entire farming operation, and the state's ag industry at large. Some of our farmers intend to use this income to pivot to higher yielding crops and others are looking to buy or lease additional acreage to grow their operations. In engagement with various Ag organizations regarding this bill, we would request three changes. First, we recommend that the size be limited to no more than one megawatt AC. Second, we recommend a truly robust Ag First definition of agrivoltaics that has garnered national support from both Ag Community and Land Trust. And lastly, we would like to implement a third party reporting, a robust third party reporting mechanism for these projects. We will submit, our proposed language and written testimony. And in closing, I would just like to emphasize the enormous strain that Connecticut farms are under and just how quickly Connecticut farms are disappearing. There are 5,000 farms in Connecticut today. If we extrapolate twenty twenty two USDA state level data, Connecticut is expected to lose roughly 100 farms in each of 2026 and 2027. By 2040, nearly 1,700 or one third of all Connecticut farms will be lost. Just seven years later, in 2047, more than half of Connecticut farms will have disappeared. And by 2026, in only thirty seven years, Connecticut will not have a single farm left. We thank the committee and the leadership for their time and look forward to working with you in this program.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for testifying today. You heard some testimony earlier, a concern about how this may actually make the problem worse in terms of the disappearance of farms. There's concern about, sort of, approximating a farming use that doesn't actually do that. I'm I'm I'm heartened by the fact that you're talking about your typical project is only 5% of the potentially arable land. Could you talk a little bit about your business and how do farmers find you and and how do you make them understand, that this is maybe a lifeline for their for their farm?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: I mean, most most farmers are in quiet desperation. Right? It's it's pretty easy to tell them that they will, you know, I how I find them, they don't find me. I find them. I literally go show up at their farm and knock on their door and have this conversation with them. They, like I said, in quiet desperation, not really knowing where to turn for help, but when I tell them that I can pay them the real estate value on a per acre basis, for the three and a half to five acres that I use every year for twenty years and that rate escalates, they start to do the math. They know that they can take that money, they can distribute it in the farm to underserved parcels, they can expand, buy more land, They can, they can, grow regenerative crops and higher margin crops. They know how this works. They know that this is a tool for them to, transfer the farm to the next generation and they know that this is a tool to do that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You you you've heard some some comments maybe here and actually also I've heard in the environment committee that there are concerns about the impact of solar panels on the soil, on other uses, and the like. Could you comment on that a bit? Because my understanding is that there has not been a study that indicates any long term damage to, properly functioning solar panels in an agricultural setting?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Yeah. Design properly, there's actually a benefit to the soil. So there you will create a microclimate, in and around the panels. And and to be clear, we we build these tall enough to fit machinery in and around them. The inter row spacing is wide enough to fit machinery. So it's not your typical solar array. It's, it's kind of different. And so this is designed with the farmer in mind. Massachusetts has specific rules about how they want you to implement it. I think it's over engineered. I think something here would be more effective to deal with the farmer specifically for their needs. But all that being said, the soil actually improves, in shade. You get more, growing hours during the day, and you get a longer growing season, in a typical season. So the I mean, farmland is going away one way or the other. So it's for non ag use. So, implementing an agrivoltaic project where ag production continues, again, not only in that footprint, but across the across the farm which they either don't have the time or the money to address now. They certainly don't have the time or the money to buy more acreage and increase their production. This is a means to do that. And again, Massachusetts, you've heard it before that there's, it's, the rate that they pay is the administrative pricing is expensive. And that is the reason why or the function of how we pay our farms life changing money in terms of they get the real estate value of their of that acre every year for twenty years. It's, it's, it's hard to do, but I think in a case like this, it's, it's important to appropriately incentivize them to do that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: To the degree that you're aware, have these kind of programs led to the demise of farms?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: We've only seen the opposite. Thank you for that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Other comments or questions? If not, we appreciate your comments. This is, an area of opportunity for us, we think, but we're very sensitive about the needs of existing farms and don't wanna do anything that would have, let's just say, unanticipated, ramifications. So, we appreciate your experience in Massachusetts and elsewhere as an indicator. One last question. Why is it important to limit it to one megawatt?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Again, I think it's the the low impact and, you know, small footprint, big impact kind of idea. I I think the the idea of of putting this all it's still a new concept. Right? Farmers are very much set in their ways telling them that the only way that they could possibly save the farm by using this tool is to cover the entire farm in panels is not an effective conversation. So I think keeping the project small with, with a large revenue stream attached to it is a way for farmers to wade in to understand how this is actually gonna work. Because there's, literally, there's maybe, you know, 30 of these across the entire country. Like, real agrivoltaics. Not put a sheep on this and, you know, as a ruminant, as a lawn mower kind of thing. This is real ag. So we're still learning as we go. The data tells us that the soil health improves, and the income certainly improves. So I, I, I think the limit, limiting it to a one megawatt size is going to focus on these small projects, which I think is appropriate, also, for the size of the farms in Connecticut. Average farm size in Connecticut is 75 acres. So, doing five acre builds probably makes sense.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: It gives me one more thought. How are we assure that the installers or the managers of these solar arrays are being good neighbors or good citizens. You know, there's always concern about, nonfunctional or problematic panels and the impact they could have. Would you be in favor of a requirement that periodically the, array has to be assessed, analyzed, make sure it is functioning properly and up to speed?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Absolutely. I mean, we own the equipment, so we want that as well. So if if, that equipment is not working effectively, it's not good for us either. And I and I think along that along those lines as far as reporting, I do think it's important to have robust third party reporting, to, from an ag perspective, to make sure that this is, is a true agrivoltaic project, that, that ag is, ag operations are continuing as, as they were discussed and, you know, kind of keeping both the farmer and the developer honest in terms of true agrivoltaics.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Provost, one more question. What's been your experience in Massachusetts and how would you go forward if you had more business in Connecticut in dealing with the Department of Agriculture and some of their needs?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: We work very closely with, MDAR in Massachusetts. So, and they had a lot to do with the implementation of this program, the design of the program. We would love to have the opportunity to discuss that with DOAG and, give our, experience in Massachusetts. There are certainly lots of improvements to be made on their program. I think it's a wonderful start. I think it can be better, and I think it can be better here. I think it's a better fit here. So, we would love to work with DOAG and try to improve upon the lessons we've learned over the last few years in Massachusetts.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. Other questions? Senator Obama.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. So it seems like you're trying to thread a needle here. Keep the farming, give the farmers some supplemental income as a way of preserving their business model at a time when it's under real threat. Yes. I think it's a great idea if you can if it works. Right? Yeah. If it generates enough revenue to make it worthwhile to give up the use of the land for ag purposes.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: I think

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: that's the key. Yeah.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. That's that's the key here. So congratulations. I hope more farmers avail themselves of it. Like you said, one acre one one megawatt is about five acres. Right?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: That's right. Yeah.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Great. I think it's a it's a way to preserve farmland and farmers being able to make a living or some sort of a living because the news this past week with the dairy farmers, dairy farming becoming nonviable in Connecticut is just sad.

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: And this this is very much a, farm farm viability tool. And, generation you know, transferring it to the farm, nobody wants to be the last farmer on the land. Right? They're just stewards of this land for now. It's not theirs. They steward it for the next generation. That's getting harder and harder to do.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You have a very, very nice niche business that can help. I mean, do you only work in Connecticut?

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Right now, Massachusetts, we're hoping to work in

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Connecticut.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Oh, okay. Alright. Great. I'm sorry. I missed that. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I do believe though that we can revive the dairy business in Connecticut if we follow, our our our commissioner and allow for raw milk, across the state. That would probably make all the difference we need.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I think you're gonna say whole milk. Whole raw milk.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. We are not I don't think our purview really extends to Derry, so we're we're gonna stop it here. Any other questions or comments? Again, thank you for your time. We appreciate your comments, and we hope you stay involved as we try to Absolutely. Do better than Massachusetts.

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: I agree. Happy to

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: help. So

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: we're gonna adjust the order a little bit, due to somebody's, schedule, but Matt Kirby followed by Ryan Menard. Matt Kirby. How are you doing, Matt?

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: Hello. Great. Thank you, co chairs and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: be here today. My

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: name is Matt Kirby. I represent an organization called Permit Power. We are a research and advocacy nonprofit on a mission to make it easier, cheaper, and safer for families to install solar on their roofs and batteries in their garage. So I'm here today to testify regarding h b five three three nine. This is the bill that would require a study to gather data on time and resources necessary to permit a residential solar installation in the state. And although we strongly agree with the sentiment behind this bill, we agree with earlier testimony that we do not actually need a study to know that it currently takes too long and costs too much for Connecticut families to get the necessary permit to install a clean energy upgrade. So So instead of spending time and taxpayer resources studying a known problem, Connecticut should immediately adopt an automated permitting platform that would make it easier for families to get the approvals they need to install, those home systems and batteries. Increasing access to home solar and batteries is an essential part of the solution to Connecticut's growing energy affordability crisis. This year, monthly utility bills will increase anywhere from 17 to 29% in many parts of the state due to increases in standard service supply rates. Going solar provides homeowners with significant savings on utility bills, approximately, $1,880 annually in Connecticut. But right now, it's red tape at the local level that delays and frequently blocks families from installing systems and makes them more expensive. About 18% in Connecticut right now of home solar projects that begin the permitting process are canceled. And installer site permitting delays as the single biggest reason for cancellations. And that red tape and delay is also making more expensive. The cost of a typical system in Connecticut right now sits at about $36,000 compared to other countries, $10,000 in Australia, $13,000 in Germany, where they have eliminated the vast majority of this permitting red tape. The assembly can fix this problem by making automated permitting available to consumers statewide. Automated permitting is live in hundreds of jurisdictions across the country, currently representing a full third of the, US residential solar market. Three states have already adopted, automated permitting statewide, and proposed bills are currently moving their way through both the Virginia and the Massachusetts legislatures. And importantly for this body as well, automated permitting platforms are readily available. They're off the shelf. They're free for governments to adapt, to adopt, and they have a proven track record of safety. SolarAPP plus Symbium are the two sort of most widely utilized platforms. Those have been successfully implemented by jurisdictions across the country. Here in Connecticut, both East Hartford and Guilford have already adopted SolarAPP plus I believe, and audits of that software have shown that projects that are permitted through the platform pass inspections at rates comparable to projects that undergo traditional permitting. So we ask that you support affordable clean energy for Connecticut by skipping an unnecessary study process and moving quickly to adopt a statewide automated permanent platform. Thank you for your time.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. So we facilitate an app, a a platform, and problem solved?

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: Essentially. Essentially. There there are several ways to do it. The states that have already gone, that that have passed statewide bills, two of them, both California and Maryland, have mandated that jurisdictions themselves have automated instant permitting platforms. And the most recent addition, New Jersey, which just signed their bill or the governor just signed the bill in December. What they are doing is actually having the state offer a platform as an option for installers to use if their jurisdiction does not have a comparable platform. So a jurisdiction could either choose to or an installer could either choose to go through the jurisdiction or go through the state platform. And, ultimately, what this does is is standardized permit times across the state, giving a lot more certainty to industry, and I think estimates are that permitting delays at about 5 to $6,000 to the cost of an average installation. So we we are talking some significant savings. You know, we're not gonna put this process in place, and, immediately, systems are gonna be 5 or $6,000 cheaper. But it is one one of the most important barriers right now that we know how to solve quickly to begin lowering prices.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So let me just understand better the, alternatives you just identified. One is for, the state to either mandate or, encourage a municipality to, acquire the app and do it themselves versus the state. Are you talking about the state acquiring the app and and sub licensing or simply identify the the state identifying a preferred app? What would be the advantage of the state taking it over?

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: So the way that New Jersey did it, and there's the similar legislation is moving its way through the Virginia legislature as we speak that's actually actually modeled off that, New Jersey legislation, is that the Department of Environmental Quality is basically charged with either developing or procuring an automated permitting platform. Right? So if they procure it, most likely, they would go with SolarAPP plus Symbium. Right? They will put out an RFP, for someone to develop the platform for them. And, again, those are those are no cost to the state, or the state could choose to develop their own automated permitting platform. These systems are not difficult, you know, in in California, for example, where each jurisdiction is mandated to have an automated platform. 17% of all the jurisdictions in California chose to build their own rather than adopting SolarAPP plus Symbium. Right? So the processes are very simple. All we're doing are code compliance checks against building codes and electrical codes. So so it it's not a very difficult lift, but the state could, in in most likely in this case, right, put out an RFP for someone to to build it at lower no cost to the state, and it wouldn't even drive a fiscal note. It did not drive a fiscal note in New Jersey.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Matters a lot to us. Representative Hughes.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. Just I just wanted to confirm that you said at no cost to the state. That just seems impossible. So we we don't often have, an opportunity, to adopt something that's no cost to the state. Can you say Yeah. What that would look like?

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: Yeah. So, again, I will say what well, New Jersey, it drew what what they called an indeterminate fiscal note, but the legislation as written gave the option for, the department of department of environmental quality to add a small surcharge if needed to defray the cost of operating the platform. Again, the two the two the two options that are currently out there are free for local governments to use. Again, when I say a third of the solar market is covered by basically one of those two platforms, and those jurisdictions are not paying for those services. Right? I they're they're in most cases, there might be a little bit of staff time on the front end to integrate it into existing permitting software, you know, if it's if it's GovTech software, whatever that looks like. But, ultimately, Symbium is is a is a private company, and SolarAPP plus

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: is a is run by

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: a non nonprofit. It was originally developed by the National Renewable Energy Lab, and both operate by charging, I believe it's, like, $35, to the installer, the on the price of a permit. So that is where they get their resources.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you for clarifying on that. That sounds good.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. One one last question for you. In your experience and if you have the data, have other states seen reductions in permitting costs once such an app has been implemented?

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: That's a great question. I I think it is too soon to tell. California is the state that has been in place longest since that bill passed, I believe, in 2022, but full compliance the full compliance deadline was not until 2024. So I would have to look to see if there has been a notable reduction based solely on the automated permitting. I know in the other two states, Maryland, that compliance deadline was just last September. And then in New Jersey, it was the bill was just signed in December. So, you know, I think I think we're gonna wait a little bit for the data to come in. I think what we what we can say is, you know, ultimately, this is about market transformation, and this is about bringing operating costs down for installers. And, eventually, we will have to ensure that those operating costs are passed along to consumers. But but what we do know is what we've seen in the real world I'll give an example. Like, because companies operate across geographies. Right? So that's why we're interested in statewide statewide standardization and then ultimately region wide standardization because that's what ultimately going to allow, an installer to bring those costs down. Right? If if even if one little jurisdiction over here has instant permitting, that doesn't change their operating costs. If 90% of the other jurisdictions they're working in, it takes two, three, four weeks, two months, to actually get a permit. But what we have seen as a real world example of this sort of regional, change is in Arizona where some of the earliest adopters of SolarAPP plus for example were Tucson and then Pima County. Right? So suddenly, we had in in this in a in a state where there's all sorts of permitting timelines, you had two jurisdictions within a a region that used instant permitting. And what we saw is in the year after that, installations in that region were 200% of what they were in the rest of the state. So regardless of, like, whether it immediately brought cost down, it was easier for consumers, and they weren't canceling projects at this absurd almost 20% rate because they were getting their their, their permit instantly. So so we do know that it's increasing clean energy deployment, and I think we are gonna have to wait a little bit longer to actually see what the real world results, bringing cost down.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We appreciate that, but thought I should ask. Yeah, I think to your point, we would be hopeful that this would, not only encourage more solar projects, but see them more projects go through to fruition. It's very frustrating for, not only the applicant, but for all of us to devote resources and then have the project not not come to pass. So that's it's worth it for that consideration alone. Other questions or comments? If not, thank you for your time. We appreciate your input into this consideration. And we take your point that maybe we don't need to study. Maybe we're ready to move it forward. We'll talk more about that.

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Let's see where we are. I guess we're up to Mitchell Callie Mitchell from Efficiency for All. Is Kaylee here?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Hi. I'm here on your TV.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We see you there.

[Katie Dykes (Commissioner, DEEP)]: Please proceed.

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Good afternoon, senators, representatives, and members of the committee. My name is Kaylee Mitchell, director of operations at Efficiency For All, a Connecticut based minority led nonprofit advancing inclusive energy, housing, education, and environmental policy for underserved communities. I'm here in support of RAISD HB 5,340, specifically section seven, and to formally present this proposal as a direct request to the state of Connecticut. Efficiency for All created empower, many hands make light work. This nonprofit was started by energy efficiency workers and small minority businesses and community members who did not see a path to participating in our clean energy or climate resilience transition. The many hands are the many different contractors, collaborators, and practitioners that it takes to serve the most vulnerable and hard to reach areas in Connecticut. Through empower one point o, we trained over 200 residents from financially distressed in EJ communities resulting in more than 500 nationally recognized certifications and an 80% job retention rate. Certifications and an 80% job retention rate. Our contractor network has served over 17,000 homes statewide. Empower two point o in partnership with the Department of Housing fully retrofitted 34 homes in Newhallville from the Frost line to the ridgeline at no cost to residents removing health and safety barriers while reducing energy burdens. This month, MPOWER three point o launches in Hartford EJ zones. 60 homes over two years, 30 in the North End and 30 citywide with energy and environmental education aligned with national science standards. We have proven that we can remove barriers, train workforce, and deliver measurable outcomes, but rooftop solar remains largely out of reach for EJ communities. Sixteen years ago, renters weren't even eligible for energy programs. Through collaboration, barriers were removed under programs like reps. But when that program collapsed, contractors were left unpaid and communities left waiting. That's why we're proposing POP, Power Our People, a 5,000,000 twenty four month pilot for 100 fully subsidized rooftop solar systems for 50 urban and 50 suburban EJ zones. Each system is projected to generate approximately 4,000 in annual savings with an estimated 100,000 in savings over thirty years. Directly reducing energy burdens for families often spending 18 to 22% of their income on utilities. From a climate standpoint, POP is projected to generate 28 to 30 gigawatt hours of clean electricity annually. It directly advances the goals of the Connecticut governor's council on climate change, 45% emissions reduction below 2001 levels by 2030, net zero by 2050, cutting co pollutants and overburdened communities and expanding equitable access to a resilient infrastructure. These are true pilot homes in the state's most disadvantaged zones, generating power where pollution burdens are highest. Our practitioners and partners have spent the last ten years researching, implementing, and reporting on past to close the energy gap in our state. This is not a handout. It's a strategic climate investment, a short term investment that delivers long term power and savings by retrofitting aging, high need LMI communities for lowered peak demand, and direct support. This pilot is measured and it reports back to you. The question before us is simple. Who deserves a seat at the table for our clean energy future? The answer must be everyone. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Kaylee. And I I wanna start by thanking you and and those you work with for, the efforts they have made, particularly with the environmental justice communities to make sure some of these initiatives are available to all, as you well put it. Help us understand a little bit better how this pilot would work. We're obviously aware of the energy efficiency work that many of your firms have been involved with. Now you're talking about a fairly significant extension beyond that. Is it realistic to be able to, go from energy efficiency measures to solar and even storage in low income communities?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Yeah. I believe so. And I think that it's crucial to know that without energy efficiency, solar isn't really a conversation. We need to have these homes properly retro fitted and working, properly wired, electrified so we can get this solar installed. And we're trying to build equity for everybody, not just for people that have, you know, high credit score or own their own home. This should be something that can be available for LMI communities and our most, distressed zones with those stationary sources of pollution, like the power plants. It's a direct ask from the state as a pilot. So, basically, we have our coalition of contractors that can go in boots on the ground, and they can use these homes as a pilot, see the barriers, see what's holding back all of these EJ communities from participating in the clean energy transition. And this way, we can kind of get into well, we're not asking for rate payer funds. We're not asking for any rate payer funds. This is basically, a bond for one time, and then it's a self funded program to continue the work as a true nonprofit. So as the energy saving credits come in, those go back out to serve more people as an expansion to this program or pilot.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So so let's continue on that and understand a little better. What a what would a a homeowner, I assume these are only homeowners, be looking at in terms of expenses, and what would be the benefit to them if the savings are going towards expanding the program?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Well, we were looking at it for not just homeowners, but renters too. This is something where the homeowners and the renters, regardless of their financial status, could get access to clean, renewable energy. They would be saving money on their utility bills from the solar, and then those energy credits could go into our fund in order to recirculate and get out into more homes. So the homeowner benefits because their home is more energy efficient, it's healthier and safer because before renewable energy, you have to remove the barriers. And so they're saving money in their wallets for their utility bills while also saving money on hospital bills from asthma or things like that. So it's something where it's like it covers climate with pollution. It helps with health and safety. It helps with advancing to the g c three goals of, bringing us below the 2001 levels by 45% by 2030. And it's a win win for everybody as a one time bonded investment into this pilot and then that money circulating through with the energy credits, it's something that it'll continue to benefit the state where we don't have to keep reasking for more money to keep it going. It'll start being, like, almost like a self funded pay it forward model.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: For that explanation. So so clearly, obviously, as you say, the credits would go to sustain or expand the program, but that the individual, homeowner or renter would see some benefit on their bills. You know, we're we're generally comfortable with the circumstance with homeowners, but we often struggle when we deal with renters. How would they see the benefit, and how would we end up actually accomplishing the project without the cooperation of the landlord?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Well, as I mean, you would want cooperation from the landlord, essentially, to get the program going efficiently. You would want the landlord to first want to install it on the home because it is an upgrade to the home and it adds value to the home. But when it comes to the renters, like, from what we are doing in New Haven right now, we're finishing up our department of housing project. We're out there serving a very specific financially distressed neighborhood. And, these people, the home energy upgrades, anything that we do for them that we've been able to help them such as, bulkhead doors or windows or things that make their how homes warmer, tighter. I think 75% of the homes that we went into for energy efficiency, we found barriers and c o two leaks and where it's a way for us to go in. We can make sure the homes are functioning properly so these people aren't at risk. And it was wild for the fact that that whole city street, there was, I think, like, 26 or 27 of them had high CO, and they had no idea. So I feel like the renters and the landlords should both be on the same page that they want to be in a home or renting out a home that is safe and sound, especially for their children.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You you make mention of obstacles by which I take that you mean typically energy efficiency opportunities in the home. I don't know if you heard earlier, there was testimony that perhaps we should decouple the HES, the the need for an evaluation and upgrades to energy efficiency from the incentives available for solar, because oftentimes it's just viewed as something that takes time and and bureaucracy, but doesn't really facilitate the development of solar in some circumstances. How important to you is it to, do the energy efficiency step first?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Energy efficiency is the most important step when it comes to solar. We need to make sure these homes are properly air sealed, insulated, that there's not any barriers in the home. One out of four homes in Connecticut have some sort of barrier. And usually for the homeowner or the renter, if an energy efficiency worker goes into their home and they find some sort of barrier, like mold, asbestos, knob and tube wiring, that project gets deferred and that expense is expense is put on the back of the homeowner or the renter to come up with those monies to pay to get that remediation done. And these people are already having to choose between keeping their heat on and buying groceries. So when it comes to energy efficiency, we have that program, empower two point o and now empower three point o, where we have braided state funding with the DOH CLM funds, and we figured out what these people are qualified for, whether it's, HES, HESI, and we can braid funding in order to get their homes fully retrofitted. We originally had the solar pop, program in our MPower three point o as a full circle of how we can make homes more energy efficient and to get renewable energy into these people's homes as well. And we've kind of split the two apart to identify that both of them are very and equally important, but energy efficiency, needs to come before solar.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. Representative Hughes.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you, mister chair. Did you say how many, homes you served in the past year? Did I miss that?

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: In the past year for Empower two point o in New Haven, specifically for that department of housing project, we serve 34 homes in Newhallville. And then the project that's coming up at the end of this month for Hartford, there's gonna be 60 homes total. So there's gonna be 30 homes in the North End and then 30 homes citywide throughout Hartford.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Okay. Great. And are there other metrics that we can take a look at that we

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: can Absolutely. So I've submitted my written testimony, but it also has our ten year report in there, and it has some linked presentations that goes through our metrics, our success and outcomes. We've been a functioning nonprofit since 2016 working on all scopes of the spectrum. So workforce development was empower one point o with the training and certification for our workforce. That's BPI, nationally accredited certifications. Then those people got on the job training and, job placement with 80% retention rate. Our coalition of contractors annually, I know it's somewhere in one of our reports, I would say anywhere between 2,500 to 4,000 homes served annually. And we're just we're just keeping it going with the new products with the Department of Housing, and we're just trying to expand and do as much as we can. And, ideally, in a perfect world, we would be able to do the home retrofits through our empower program and then add that pop solar component on the top.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you. And, mister chair, just one more question. I mean, some of the barriers you spoke about are very, common in older housing stock. Yeah. I know with my own energy audit, they said, okay, well, none of your walls are insulated. And so you'd have to do that first

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Before we move on to the next thing. And and that cost, is is a barrier right there to do the next phase of, energy efficiency measures. So I I can empathize that renters, especially, but also, landlords that have older housing stock desperately need these, braided incentives and funding sources to do the upgrades. So thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Any other questions or comments? If not, thank you for your testimony. We recognize that this is dependent to some degree on funding. We wish you best of luck with the money committees, but, this certainly seems like a pilot that is worth exploring to see if it can benefit us, in in environmental justice communities across the state. Thank you.

[Kaylee Mitchell (Director of Operations, Efficiency For All)]: Thank you so much.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. We're gonna make another exception. I confess that it grieves me to make exceptions because the last thing I wanna do is give everybody the impression that you can manipulate the process here by saying you gotta be somewhere. We may require a doctor's note in the future. But we will make the exception because we understand there are two people who are about to leave who would like to speak together. Anna Lucy from NECTA and Ryan Menard from Comcast. It's an interesting combination, so I'm curious to see what your testimony will be. Proceed.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chair Steinberg ranking members Fazio and Mara, and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Anna Lucey and I'm the Executive Vice President for Legislative Affairs for the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association, we're just known as NECA for short. NECA is here in support of Senate Bill three twenty one and appreciates the committee raising and considering the bill. NECA members have recently been working against the clock in partnering with the state to deploy our broadband networks to unserved and underserved locations in Connecticut before federal use it or lose it dollars run out. Senate Bill three twenty one seeks to revisit a notice requirement that has had the unintended consequence of stalling speedy deployment in the state. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Rob Early, from our member of Comcast to go into further detail.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: Thank you. And this bill came about because of a gentleman to my left, Ryan Menard, who is our manager of construction. We were preparing for a docket at PURA that talked about best practices in the industries, what was working for the broadband industry, what wasn't working. And one of the questions that came up was, why don't we look at the conduit rule? Why isn't that on the list over at PURA? So we asked, what's the conduit rule? So what we found was, there's a rule that currently isn't getting, I think, the intended benefit when it was passed in 2021. We have some good data to support why it should be before this committee and considered. So it's the reason why it's coming to you today. We thank the committee for raising it. It came a little bit late because the hearing at PURA was on the February 2. We came racing over to see if we could raise it. But I'm gonna turn it over to Ryan because the reason really that Bill is here today on this topic is because of his insights into it. So Ryan Menard from Comcast, our manager of construction.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. Thank you. So for us, this bill was really passed to allow one dig across the road or down a road and have multiple utilities be able to get into it. On the forefront, when we look at that, I think that's a great sounding idea. But over the past years that we have done this, we have filed hundreds of these applications, and not one of them have we seen joint use in, nor have we jumped in anybody else's trench through this bill. So I think last year in total, we spent about a $136,000 just in, legal fees and documentation fees to put these together, to put them forward with getting nothing in benefit out of it. When you talk about slowing us down, it's really that thirty day window where we have to wait to dig the trench in the first place so that other companies can look to see if they can get into the trench with us. And really, in our business, we work a lot with small business owners. And what we see in a lot of cases is they're kind of calling us last minute and saying, hey, my grand opening is in thirty days, and I need Internet to run the credit card machines. So unfortunately for us, if we have to dig to get to their property and cross the street, that kind of doesn't allow us to meet that timeline for the customer, and potentially pushes out their grand opening, or has them move forward without the capabilities to run a credit card machine on it.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: And for the committee members who are looking at the bill, they're probably not seeing this particular issue. We would ask for a modification to address the issue which Ryan is raising, which is that under Connecticut's rule, we have to give Purin notice. The paperwork he was talking about with the six figures was preparing that paperwork, which goes to our permitting team, our legal team, sometimes needs to be tweaked, goes to Pura who's actually great at turning it around quickly, but then we have this wait. And we have to wait, and at the end of that wait, 488 times, there's never been a taker since this rule was passed and implemented, I think, in 2021. So I just wanna clarify if the committee's reading three two one in the language, they're not gonna see that we're asking for a modification. So I think we're pretty close to the end of our time, so we wanna leave the balance for questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sure. Since you are actually passed the amount of time. So look, you understand legislative intent. We we wanted to avoid having to be in the trenches too frequently with too many different providers. But to your point, it doesn't seem to be working. Is there another solution? Is this a matter of appropriate communication? Should, the first one in, so to speak, be going out of our way to sort of, telegraph their intent well in advance of actually opening up the ground so that the other potential providers can scramble to take advantage? Or is this simply a matter of that everybody's got their own timetables and they're all gonna come to it as they want? Because that sounds extremely inefficient and not in anybody's interest. Isn't there a better way?

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. So, I think it it is. Right? I think the problem is the business that we're in, we move so fast with trying to turn customers up and trying to get people access to broadband that sometimes the ability to send a bill to design and figure out if it's gonna, you know, make you money to go build to that customer, go build to an area that you know you don't have a sold customer and just, kind of, wait that maybe one day you gain them, it really is not a good cost allocation to go after certain areas that you're not going to get the business from.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: And to sharpen that, Chairman Steinberg, one of the things that we do in the business is we have economic modeling about trying to go into areas, and we wanna add as many customers as we can. But say you go into a neighborhood with hypothetically 12 folks, there's already the phone company's already there, we already have Verizon Frontier, we're there. At best, if theoretically a third provider could get in the trench, they're not gonna get 12 customers. Maybe they'll get four, but the expense that it takes to build to those customers, they're competing with two providers that are already there, so sometimes the benefit for these folks is just not there. And then the other point, it's not like Field of Dreams, they gotta have the infrastructure all around them. It's not just the conduit connection, it's the other infrastructure that carries the Internet that already has to be there. So the rule is very specific to the connection, but unless the provider has made the investments, much like a high voltage transmission line goes and gets broken down on the substation, it gets broken down to the transformer on the pole it makes the connection, they have to have everything that precedes that in order to be viable to go into the trench.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: And to further sharpen a point, PURA did set up, a standard notification procedure just like they do for any docket so that when an applicant, knows they're going to be doing this, they have to put the notice in. It then goes out to all communications providers or anyone who would possibly want to get in the trench, through the same process that they use for any docket immediately. Nectar, because we represent the members and have a very interest in PURA, even we get the notices and it's just straight up fast emails that, of everyone like, this is another notice, another notice, noted, notice. So it's definitely going out to the interested parties in a timely way.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. It doesn't seem to be working. So it it does beg the question, are other states doing this better? You know, it it should there maybe be some limit on their frequency. You can dig a hole in the same place or something along those lines.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: From what we've seen in our NECTUS profile, being in the New England states, the only other state that has a similar purposefully broadband deployment law that came about in a similar fashion of Connecticut is Maine. Maine has a much shorter notice requirement, notice I should say and tolling requirement of five days. It's also notice requirements a little different where it does goes directly to the main Broadband Authority who then blast the notice just a small tweak from how it's done with PURA, not, but the big thing is it's it's five days. So there's not really an appreciable time that of that delay that we're seeing here in Connecticut.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: It'd be amenable perhaps to a shorter period.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: I'll defer to my expert on my left,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: but I think that I think

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: the other thing too, because Ryan will make this point. The main rule also sets some specific distance requirements. So so if we right now, if we have to dig a three foot trench on a sidewalk, we have to wait thirty days. Even though no one's going in it, that's the rule.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: Yeah. There's no, footage requirement in the Connecticut statute.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. So Maine has a 500 foot rule, so if it's over 500 feet, that's where they would get into that space. I think for us, the majority of what we have is small road crossings, where it might be 25 to 50 feet just to get from one side of the road where our infrastructure is over to that single customer who has not been turned up. We do have obviously much larger builds across the state, where those we may have much larger digs, and I think that that's fair to say if it's more than 500 feet

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: or so, that there could be

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: a good possibility that we're getting down a whole new development or a whole new street that's never had service. To be able to allow multiple providers into that would work, but when you're talking about single customers, those real short, trenches, those are the ones that get a little bit much.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Needleman, followed by representative Hughes, followed by representative Fogg.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Great. Well, you got to the question that I was gonna ask, which is sort of service lines from the road to the house versus more system lines. Do you have a problem with leaving some kind of notice in place for the larger conduit and just deal with the service lines, eliminating the need to notify. Because, I mean, I've I've there are times when, like, a cable line under the ground will break. And if the I don't know if a replacement is different than a new service, but I had one in my old house where it just I don't know if a mole got it or whatever happened, but we needed a new service line and they had to trench it in. I think they did it with a ditch which, honestly. I don't think they dug. But I just wonder if we can differentiate between service lines and system lines.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. And I think that's a really good point because, like I said, any of those larger builds that are, you know, feeding an entire neighborhood or anything like that, those are planned out well in advance, and the thirty days doesn't do anything to us. It's those single customers that are trying we're gonna try to get a quick turnaround for them. Those are the ones that create the headaches.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So maybe we can get some adjusted language that would take that into account. I have one one last question that has nothing to do with trenches. It has to do with overhead. Rob knows I'm the first selectman in my town, and I drive around looking at wires all day long. And I see spooled up wires. Sometimes I see, like, with services, we're clearly disconnected. Wires just hanging into the road that are not electric wires. I don't know if they're yours or they're Frontier's. I doubt they're the state fiber. Oh, my Lord. But do you guys have a policy about trimming, spooling, securing so that mean, there there are some that look like you can hang yourself from them.

[Matt Kirby (Permit Power, nonprofit)]: Yes.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And they're all over my town.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. So the when you normally see those spooled wires at a pole, what those are normally from is the overbuilds. So other companies that are coming in and building on top of everybody, what they do is they leave those tails coiled up at the pole so that they can go back at a later time and splice them together and hang them properly. But, yes, you do get a large number of them that are not cared for as properly as they should be. For us, any of the dead stuff that might be falling off or anything like that, our line technicians that are out in the field should be seeing those, removing those, or sending in tickets if they need our construction group to get involved to be able to clean that stuff up. But we, with Comcast, take a really high priority in making sure that we take care of our current network.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I would think it's a real liability problem if there's wires hanging. 100%. You know, yours are not twisted pair wires, generally, are they? No. So the inside of the cable would look different. I'm going to actually try to make a point of looking to see if there are, you know, legacy phone lines that are out there. But it's really unsightly and dangerous, in my opinion. So thank you. I'd like to try to get this resolved. You shouldn't have to wait for no reason.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It does sound like we are talking about a redundant excessive rule that we implemented. And I I like the suggestions of the chair of maybe reducing it to five days like Maine and making sure there's a length requirement for the bigger projects. I wanted to get back to something you said in your testimony about is it bead deployment that I'm on a a legislative, I don't know, caucus, national wide about really trying to get these bead deployment funds, in our state before they run out federally. Can you talk more about that and where we are with that?

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: I think, representative Hughes, I think the best illustration is not the BEED funds. The shot clock that is associated with this, we call the CPF funds, which was the first wave of coronavirus funds.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Right.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: There's ten months left to do the building on that. Beat has a longer timeline.

[Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel, Office of Consumer Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: There's more room. So so one of the ideas is that it just gives us a little bit more, if we can shorten the timeline, that's an added benefit.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: And and where are we at with that landscape of utilizing those? We're we're very concerned that we're leaving funds on the table at a time when we can ill afford to do that.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: Speaking for Comcast and just having checked in with my folks that work very closely with Deep on this

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: It's it's regular calls, it's regular check ins. I feel like we're in really good shape

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Okay.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: When it comes especially to the next ten months.

[Kate Donnelly (Chair, Hampton Green Energy Committee)]: Okay.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: We're just as somebody who is probably the worst gardener who's ever gonna come before this committee this year

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: I don't know. I'm I'm probably up there with you.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: Sometimes you put a shovel in the ground and you hit a rock or you hit other kinds of things that just makes it really difficult. I have parents in Niantic who I can't tell you how many times, they said put the bush there, and and it's not happening because you start to dig and things happen in the field when we do construction.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Okay.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: So just having a little bit more of an ability to have some time cut down here with the with the weight would help us.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: But I think we're

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: in great shape.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Okay. So but this, SB three twenty one would help ensure that we are maximizing those federal resources as well.

[Rob Early (Government Affairs, Comcast)]: Yes. If we

[Andy Frank (Deputy Commissioner, DEEP)]: can make the modifications that we're If we can make modifications.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: So Yeah.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Important fiscal note, savings. So let's do that.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: Time is money. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Thank you all so much for being here today. I am reminded as I'm listening to this conversation that some of us were advised by some of our colleagues to read abundance by Ezra Klein this last year. And one of the whole big philosophies in that book is that time is money and that the longer you delay and the more hurdles you have anyone jump through, they increase the cost of doing business. And so there's a lot of times where there are these unintended consequences. My interpretation of this is that it was a well intentioned policy that was a sledgehammer when we needed a scalpel. And so I would like to really elucidate, it sounds like a minimum length requirement would be helpful. The main model sounded like it was 500. In some of our water statue, it's a we're aiming for a thousand for requirement for connection. It was 200 and we're looking to increase it in bills across. What is the minimum distance that would look at the cost efficacy? Because my guess is your company digs a lot of trenches and when they're small enough, the cost is inconsequential. So at what length does it become consequential and is there some difference that we can draw between when the trenches are being dug in parallel with a road and likely in parallel with several other utilities versus crossing which is when it seems like this benefit would not be helpful and we should eliminate those. So, I think this is sort of what Norm was getting at but I think that my head works on is it concurrently running with all of the other utilities along a roadway or is it crossing the roadway and at what point in time we do it? So I'll let you answer those questions.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Yeah. So the footage side of it, you know, I think the 500 feet is a good number in our current day with coax across everywhere, because most of our extensions are, for single customers are below that amount. As everything that we do more moves towards fiber and we upgrade our network everywhere to have fiber in place, those drops to houses get a lot longer because fiber doesn't have the distance restrictions that coax does. So in that case, I would say somewhere around 1,500 feet would be a better number for that, because that's the length of our drop work or our our actual to the house connections. So I guess, really, that thousand foot kinda lands right in the middle and and would put us in a good space for that. And, yeah, I would I would agree. If we're going down a road where multiple utilities are running along, there is an opportunity to upgrade, to install on a lot of those and help support laying your base network, whereas those lateral ones, which are the ones that cross the street, those are gonna be a lateral to one single house, to one single business. They're not gonna be feeding multiple customers. So that will there really isn't a benefit to have multiple people in those trench, in those trenches because there's not multiple customers on the other side.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: And is the noticing a problem? Because I can imagine that PURA might make an argument that it would be helpful for us to collect the data for five years, get rid of the delay, and for some period of time, still have you file for notice. And then we can know how many times we're doing redundant digs and if there's a way to make this a scalpel a more effective policy to save rate payer and taxpayers down the road. Is the reporting costly and prohibitive to you all, or is it the delay that's the problem, or is it both?

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: It's the delay that gets us the most. The cost of putting the reporting together just to notify them where we're digging is no different than us filing for a permit. And in most of these cases, we already are filing for the permits in these spots. So a slight addition to the permit as far as calling out exactly where we're going is is really not a big deal.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Perhaps there's a way for us to consider making whatever the reporting requirements is that is exist exactly duplicative of what is already in the permit. So we're not making you file two separate applications and spend any more staff resources on the permit. If we can make those reporting, less labor intensive, that would help too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Do you have anybody else? Do we have anybody online? Oh, guys. Thank you.

[Anna Lucey (EVP, Legislative Affairs, NECTA)]: Thank you. Thank

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: you for taking us out of turn. Next up is, Kaylee

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Mitchell followed by Josh Kaske.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We did. I'm sorry. Okay. So Joshua Kasky. Josh, Oh, once. Twice. Okay. David Emberling followed by Chelsea Farrell.

[David Emberling (Citizens’ Climate Lobby)]: Good afternoon. And thank you for taking all of these hours listening to this voluminous testimony. I have to say I admire your stamina, which is greater than mine. I'm David Emberling. I'm with Citizens Climate Lobby. We are a nonprofit climate education and advocacy organization, and I'm here to urge the committee to support HB number 5,340, possibly known as the solar bill. As I'm sure everyone in the room is aware, Connecticut has some of the highest electric prices in the country. And all the reports, all the experts are testifying that, our need for more power is going to be growing considerably in the next few years. Solar power has become the quickest and in most cases least expensive way to add that power. So our basic position is anything we can do to encourage more solar development in the state would be a good thing. The, I know that, natural gas, new natural gas facilities are currently taking at least three to five years to develop and solar can be done much more quickly. I think nationally the average for commercial is maybe a year and a half something like that. We personally got solar in our house last year. It took six months start to finish cost $3.30 a watt. And just for comparison in Australia right now the average home solar installation takes two weeks or less to install from start to flipping the switch and costs $1 a watt before subsidies. I think that we should be looking very hard at why it is so much slower and so much more expensive in The United States in general and Connecticut in particular. The permitting as some people before me have mentioned is a big part of it. I just wanted to add to the gentleman who spoke about the automated permitting process that nationally I'm not familiar with the other one but solar app plus in the cities that have been using it. Among the other benefits, the number of, projects that failed inspection dropped by about nearly 30% when they were using the automated app versus the older manual type applications on paper or whatever the cities were using prior. So that's an additional benefit of the automated process in addition to saving time and money. It seems to get a better result. In particular I wanted to mention the provision in the bill for plug in solar sometimes called balcony solar. Some other people have mentioned the importance of bringing the benefits of solar to lower income people and renters. And this is a way to do that. It's basically a system that can be purchased and literally hung off the balcony. Say if your apartment, if you're an apartment dweller, and plugged into the wall and we'll start bringing the benefits of solar to these people. And I'm ready for questions.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Mashinsky.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Thank you. Do you have you had any experience with, port solar or balcony solar store, combined with a four hour battery in the house?

[David Emberling (Citizens’ Climate Lobby)]: Yeah. That is increasingly being encouraged. Utah has just authorized this last year. So this is pretty new in The United States. It's very popular in Europe. They've been doing it for years. They have millions of them, some with batteries, some without. My understanding of the economics is that these systems would work best with batteries in Connecticut. Yes. And those are that's what, you know, is kind kind of people are being encouraged to do. Correct.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Just anxious to hear from you at this committee, representative, because I know it's going to be one of the last times that I get to hear you at our committee. It's been a real joy. I'm going to cry. So anyone else? I don't see anyone online. So thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. Chelsea Farrell from Trinity no. I'm sorry. David no. That was David. Chelsea Farrell from Trinity Solar, followed by Eunice Mahler from a member of the public.

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: Good afternoon, Chairman Needleman, Chairman Steinberg, ranking and distinguished members of the, committee. My name is Chelsea Farrell, and I am the policy and legislative manager here at Trinity Solar. Trinity is, Connecticut, and we have worked in the state for over eighteen years. I'm here to testify on House Bill 5,340, an act concerning renewable power generation. Trinity is is very appreciative of the committee's work and dedication to clean energy programs in Connecticut and specifically hear your work towards creating a framework for a successor program. We are in strong support of 5,340, but I'd just like to briefly highlight a few suggested modifications to the bill. Although I'll I'll I'll graze over them at a high level, at least on some of these provisions. And then, we also have our written testimony. So so just briefly a recommendation, we recommend a modification of the the timeline presented in the bill as the bill states that the EDCs would be required to begin offering tariffs on or after 07/01/2028, while the current RS program is set to end at the 2027. So on its face here, there would be the six month gap of a working program for residents to to participate in. And then this lap in a residential program would would create a huge challenge to the industry. Residential solar markets truly depend on program continuity and customer confidence in the program. And this gap would immediately halt new residential installations, disrupt workforce stability across installers, electricians, suppliers, and subcontractors. And then it would create a a bottleneck effect upon relaunch or which would likely overwhelm permitting offices, utilities, and interconnection queues. Just adding a little bit of color here specifically from Trinity. If if we missed q one and q two in 2028 installations based on previous years, this would equate to potentially a 1,200 homes and systems not being deployed. As for possible solutions, the legislation could align the successor programs accepting application date with the expiration of the RS program, just aligning those two dates or secondary or also they could provide the ability to extend or or bridge that gap between existing RS programs, until the successor tariffs are are ready and operational. Either one would be a a viable solution to this critical issue. Another key component of the successor program that I just want to highlight would be how the export compensation rate is set for customers who install solar. It's important for that rate setting process to just take a balanced approach that considers the many factors listed within the bill, but while at the same time, customers need that that clear and predictable structure. I did submit written testimony, so please take a look at it if you have the time, and thank you so much for the opportunity.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. Thank you, Chelsea. One quick question. Just as an aside, how much of your sales are done through door to door selling?

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: The last I checked from on this, it was for a hearing last year. So I haven't I haven't checked on this recently, but I I believe it was over 60%. I can follow-up and make sure that that's an accurate number, as I don't wanna speculate, but I believe last year, it was it was over 50%.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Just, as an aside, I hope the customers in my town that have signed up with Trinity, I've I've never heard a complaint. But I was a little concerned at one point when I was engaged by one of the salespeople at my house, and I just sort of went through the conversation with them. And I I just wanna make sure that you adequately train them to not oversell. It would be the nicest way to put that.

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: I I appreciate that. I I will follow-up and make sure that that was that is looked into and can happily follow-up with you. And I apologize for if that interaction didn't go as well, but I'm glad to hear others were happy with their installs.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I have to, you know, you guys follow-up and sign on with a peddler permit. You know, we're we're sort of changing the rules in our town to one permit to one person. So somebody can't take out a $200 permit and send 10 people into town, which has happened, I don't think, as much with your guys as with other companies selling other things. So, but it seems like we perpetually have an open Trinity solar permit. So, I'm gonna turn it over to my co chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Hey. I think that the lesson that we learned is be very careful when you do anything in Essex. You might wanna clear it with the first selectman first. I'm really appreciating your your testimony here because I believe perhaps Trinity being one of the larger installers here in the state of Connecticut has a unique perspective on the state of the industry in Connecticut. We know we've gone through some changes. Some of the big players have fallen by the wayside. Could you give a quick description of kind of the state of the industry at this point, particularly with the, new wrinkle of the end of the, ITC?

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: I I appreciate that comment and and question. I I'd like to say that the industry is is board looking and positive. We're looking at with the loss of those federal incentives, not just how the states can assist, but but where we can adapt and create new programs. And I think this is where storage will play an increasingly important role, as more distributed solar comes online. And and and programs with battery and solar together will allow customers to to not just customers to have that benefit, but so many other benefits like reducing strain on the grid, improving the overall system reliability, incentivizing solar is gonna be crucial alongside or incentivizing storage, I'm sorry, will be crucial to incentivize and and put more solar on on on the grid. So I think I think there's work to be done. I think that there's lots of conversations to be had around what the right pathway forward is, but I I I think that we're on the right track. We have a lot of brilliant people in this industry that that are working very hard at this and having open ended conversations that just it's it's the solar coaster. Right? It's just it never ends, but we're we're positive looking.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Here, and I and I feel compelled to acknowledge the role Trinity has played in maintaining trust in the industry by taking over maintenance contracts for installed systems that were installed by other companies that are no longer honoring those commitments. We appreciate that. It certainly, hopefully maintains confidence in the industry's willingness to, to back up its efforts and look out for the customer. And that's not always the case, and we appreciate that. Representative Hughes.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for your detailed testimony. I have, one comment and one question, to follow-up on, cochair Needleman's concern, I mean, it's very important that our industries, remain sensitive to the landscapes that we are in now. And recently, our towns are very concerned, You know, neighbors are very concerned with people coming up to their doorstep, not knowing who they are properly identified, trying to communicate. Is this a legit, you know, door to door solar? Are they properly, you know, do they have the right kind of badge identification or vehicle identification because it's creating fear, quite frankly. We're we're in a fearful landscape of homeowners that need to be reassured of who's been vetted and legitimized. So I think that that is just important to keep in mind as we try to pivot to more, safe ways of, of, getting these services out. The second thing I wanted to know is, are you working with, the federal direct pay program for renewable energy projects on municipalities, nonprofits, churches, schools, and states?

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: To your to your first comment about consumer protection concerns, I I, will just echo what, Mike Trahan had said earlier from concept where, we've we had someone vetted, and we had a seat at the table for that consumer protection task force. We'd happily, we would love to to revamp that and get that going, just to make sure that those conversations are had and and and to make sure that those fears are are are at at least at at bay. Right? And we we have solutions in place. And then to your second comment, I I don't believe we are. No.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone else with their hand raised. Thank you so much.

[Chelsea Farrell (Policy & Legislative Manager, Trinity Solar)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Eunice Mollafar followed by Wesley Schwach.

[Eunice Mahler (Member of the public)]: Thank you for this solar day. Solar Sunshine is a wonderful Connecticut natural resource. Let's harvest it in as many ways possible. First, it's important to bring this harvest of solar electricity to as many Connecticut residents as possible. Part of doing this is including the plug in solar legislation and solar bill. Thank you. When passed, Connecticut will be a leader in ISO New England. Plug in solar can help lower electric bills for anyone who installs a 1,200 watt system. It's truly something that can help work for all resident rate payer rate payers in this state. The second thing I'd like to comment on is on page 35, the rate setting methodology of PURA's February 27 legislative report. States, quote, through the export compensation rate, rather than the use of non bypassable charges, will better achieve programmatic goals. I request a rollback of the current non bypassable rate of 4.2¢ that went into effect 01/01/2026. The standard rate of Eversource offer today was 11.19¢ per kilowatt hour. ULs was 13.69¢ per kilowatt hour. 4.2¢ on top of that is a 37% increase to solar, owners, new solar owners, and a 30% for UL. Because this non bypassable charge is not a readable, will not cause a raise reasonable rate of return for people putting solar on their households, for the next two years until this rate tariff study is done or the rates tariff legislation goes into effect. I asked this committee to consider adding legislation that removes this non bypassable charge. Now not wait until 04/01/2028, when a final order is due to go into effect. I do have lines and pages. If anyone wants to know it's page four on HB fifty three forty line one zero nine to one twelve and page five of a fifty three forty, lines, one thirty six to one forty. The third thing I'd like to talk about is I request that a study of the environmental value of the distributed energy be updated to include all information, like information to capacity markets from ISO New England, the new way to bid on the fifteen minute intervals, and so on. I hear the timer, so I'll try to wrap it up here. The dates to be assigned for and to assign dates to complete this VDAR in time for consideration for the final order. 04/01/2028. With this, I thank you so much for focusing these bills on solar and I've, followed the solar tariff with three sets of comments already. I'll be putting those into my testimony online. And I'd be glad to answer any questions. I could talk about Guilford Town and how they have, used the solar app plus already.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Eunice. That's great. We've heard a lot of good things about the app. So, the testimony seems to be consistent about not studying it, but, putting it into effect. We're gonna have a conversation about that. Appreciate your coming today. Does anybody have any questions? There being none, Wesley Schrock followed by Ian McDonald.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Wesley Schrock (Head of Policy, BrightSaver.org)]: Thank you, chair Needleman, chair Steinberg, and members of the committee. My name is Wesley Schrock, head of policy at brightsaver.org, a California based nonprofit dedicated to building a plug in solar movement in The US. We run pilot programs, installing plug in systems to see what works and what doesn't, and to gather savings data. We also work on policy, supporting state level plug in solar enabling legislation. I am testifying to encourage the committee to support h b fifty three forty section five to allow the people of Connecticut to use plug in solar, helping them to save money by reducing their electricity bills. This is a market driven solution requiring no tax credits or public funds. We are just cutting red tape. Importantly, Connecticut will be joining a national movement and in so doing, building a market for plug in solar in The US. Last year, Utah was the first state to pass legislation enacting h b three forty, a bipartisan reform, exempting plug in solar from interconnection rules, and immediately, two companies began selling systems in Utah. This year, 30 states have introduced legislation in conversations with manufacturers, both those selling in Utah and those sitting on the sidelines. With five or six more states on board, manufacturers will expand product product offerings and or enter The US market for the first time, selling in all states with legislation, including Connecticut. Given the sizable demand, we model that competition will drive system costs below a dollar per watt with payback periods declining to two to four years. I do recommend, two small amendments to the bill language. The first is explicitly exempting systems from net metering. While section five b exempts plug insular from interconnection, it makes no mention of net metering. The second is around system sizing. Rather than limiting consumers to one plug in system per meter as section five b does, establishing a maximum aggregate power output of 1,200 watts per meter. Given that plug in solar systems are modular, this provides consumers the option of reaching that 1,200 watt threshold, with different systems plugged into different outlets in different locations. For example, one in the balcony, one in the side yard. And that concludes my my testimony. Happy to answer any questions about, plug in solar if there are any.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Wesley. I'm not seeing anybody with their hand raised in the room. I appreciate your patience and your testimony. Ian McDonald followed by Mark Mitch. I don't know how to say that unless it's spelled wrong. But

[Ian McDonald (Member of the public)]: Well, thank thank you all for the opportunity to to testify today on h b fifty three forty. So, you know, I I certainly support the effort to come up with a durable framework and next steps on the successor study. I I and I also, you know, directionally very much support, you know, the emphasis on storage and time of use rates. But I certainly have some concerns around whether, you know, we're expensive enough in terms of what's available. UL listed batteries are available currently vis a vis storage and with the, you know, AMI meters not quite being there yet on on some of the time of use rates. You know, I I do have a concern that sometimes as we we we can we tend to put the solar somewhat under a microscope. And I I don't really have a problem putting the solar under a microscope, but it's it's more of a question, are we are we properly properly valuing it vis a vis, you know, other technologies? And I feel a little bit in the study like we're kind of spiking the football in the twenty five five yard line in terms of where we're at with our solar deployment in the state. You know, ratepayers pay for for generation, whether it's excessive, you know, somebody's excessive solar generation, whether it's gas, oil, or nuclear generation. And, you know, I worry that there's sometimes this is kind of beggar thy neighbor on the excess solar generation while we were kind of naturalized many of the systemic costs around a lot of other technologies. Like gas generation, for example, you know, these costs include hundreds of million dollars previously with the ISO's inventory to energy program. Prospectively, maybe hundreds of million dollars on new pipeline infrastructure. The high, cost of gas and marginal, of gas as a marginal and peak generator in the regional markets, transmission costs, inevitable geopolitical price shocks, and the negative health and environmental externalities associated with this technology. So started to close, you know, to protect rate payers is critical that we value the true cost of alternatives to rate payers at the same time that we're putting that solar under the microscope. So I think there's some good things about this study. I think we need to I think maybe we're we're coming off the solar a little too fast there. And lastly, I'd just like to reference the recent Synapse Energy Study on Massachusetts technical potential of solar and it goes into a lot of the systemic benefits and cost savings around solar. And I'm happy to share that with members of the committee and answer any questions if I can. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you so much, Ian. I don't see anybody with any questions. Appreciate it. Mark Appreciate you.

[Ian McDonald (Member of the public)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I was just gonna say submit that

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: report to us. That would be great.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Oh, sure. Thank you so much. Yeah. And can you

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: send that report over? I think we might

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: have lost him, but we can we can contact him. Mark Minich, Connecticut Republican Assembly. Mark, are you there? Going once, twice. Gone. Jake Assell followed by Kyle Wallace. Jake Assell. Sorry? Disconnecting. Thank you.

[Jake Asail (GoodLeap)]: Hello. Can you hear me?

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sure. We can hear you perfectly.

[Jake Asail (GoodLeap)]: Alright. Chairs Needleman and Steinberg, rank ranking members Fazio and Mara, and members of the joint energy and technology committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jake Asail, and I'm on I'm here on behalf of Good Leap. We are a technology company that provides financing and software for for sustainable home upgrades, such as rooftop solar batteries, heat pumps, HVAC, and more. Nationally, our platform has enabled over $30,000,000,000 in financing since 2018. And here in Connecticut, we've served more than 8,000 residents while supporting over 90 local installation companies. I'm testifying today in support of HB5340 because it builds on the success of the RS program, keeps Connecticut moving forward on customer side of clean energy, and can help accelerate the adoption of residential battery storage, a helpful tool in mitigating the joint affordability and energy demand challenges facing Connecticut and the nation. At the same time, we respectfully recommend a few targeted changes to protect customers and avoid unintended market disruption. First and most importantly, HB 5,340 creates a program gap. The bill as written leaves a six month period with no active program. Even if that gap is predictable on paper, it will be disruptive in the real world. When customers hear there's a six month gap, many will wait for the new program to begin or rush to be part of the existing program, leaving a sharp contraction in between programs. Solar is a kitchen table decision, and timing matters. That pause would also land in the 2028 right through the peak selling season, and that means real consequences. Contractors may have to cut staff, shrink operations, and in some cases, close their doors. We urge the committee to ensure continuous program availability, either by giving PURA the authority to extend the current RS program until the successor is ready or by moving up the successor timeline so tariffs start 01/01/2028 and letting PURA begin its proceeding earlier. Second, we support PURA's recommendation in its legislative report that the prevailing supply rate act as a floor for export compensation. Connecticut can modernize ARAs and manage repair impacts without undermining the economics of stand alone solar, which remains an important entry point and gateway to storage adoption. And as the state encourages storage, it's worth underscoring the upside. Solar plus storage gives customer backup power and more ability to control their utility bills, and aggregated home batteries like those in the energy storage solutions program can discharge at peak times to improve system reliability and lower system costs for all repairs. Third, we recommend extending the successor program term from twenty years to twenty five years. That the twenty five years would better align with typical financing products and warranty periods, and it makes the customer experience simpler and more transparent over the life of the system. Finally, we strongly support convening the consumer protection task force as laid out in the legislation. In closing, HB fifty three forty provides a strong opportunity to modernize ARES, and we support its passage. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'll be submitting written testimony later today.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Jake. I'm not sure I'm seeing anybody with any hands up. I really appreciate your patience. Kyle Wallace, followed by Brian Carmody. Kyle? Oh, you're in person, Kyle. How are you?

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: All right. Thank you, Chairman Needleman, Chairman Steinberg, Ranking Members Mara, Ben Fazio, and all members of the committee. My name's Kyle Wallace. I'm the senior director of policy at Sunrun, a residential solar and storage provider that has installed over a million systems across The US with an almost 250,000 batteries associated with that. I'm here in support of House Bill fifty three forty. This is a successor bill, and I filed extensive comments already in writing so I'll just cover a couple of key pieces. But I I just wanna first say that we appreciate PURA's hard work in developing the successor study. We generally support the recommendations that are included. I think it went through a very thoughtful process and ultimately will help move these programs forward while also ensuring that the rate payer benefits that are provided are aligned with the compensation that the programs are providing participants. So we really appreciate that. One of the most important things that the successor program for specifically, the r res I'll be talking just about the residential side, not n res and SCF, is that it will help incentivize the move to solar and storage as the the default offering in the market over time, which I think is really critical in how we help reduce system costs, how we improve the rate payer benefits. So just really wanted to emphasize that that's going to be a critical part of it, but it's also important to ensure that solar only is still viable, as we make that transition because it doesn't happen overnight. A few of the recommendations I know you've heard from from, previous folks. One, fix the timelines in the bill to ensure there's no gap in programs. We would recommend adding language that sets a floor for the export rate that PURA sets through its process at no less than the supply rate. We understand that's a complicated process to set what exactly it should be, but I think providing that floor would be helpful in providing some certainty. We also would recommend there be language that allows PURA to continue ARES until the successor is developed, just so there is no program gap, and in case implementation takes longer on anything from utility billing system improvements to it takes longer for PURA to decide what the rates are. One thing I do wanna address is, we we do not support a a hard cap on the residential program or, try to lump in residential with other projects and have them compete for the same, share of the budget. I think that is just would be inherently problematic for multiple reasons. I'd be happy to explain more of that, but I just wanna emphasize that that is would be unique for Connecticut. Residential programs across the country are not structured that way and for good reason. And so while that may make sense for larger scale projects that have longer development cycles, can go through bidding processes, residential systems are just inherently different, and and we think that it it requires a different approach. And this is something that was explored at the beginning of the ARRIS program, and ultimately, PURA had opted for setting the rates rather than through a competitive process. And then I will end by just saying that we also support the consumer protection task force. We really would love to see it convene. There's a lot of, I think there's a lot of benefits to getting all of the different stakeholders tomorrow for consumer protection, PURA, OCC, the utilities, solar installers, everyone in a room and be able to really work through these kind of cross jurisdictional issues about where is the best place to ensure that we're protecting consumers on sales and marketing, on workmanship, on licensing, all of these different things. And I think that task force would be really useful in helping make some progress in that area. So happy to answer any questions related to the written testimony or anything else. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thanks, Kyle. So choice of a or b, financial cap or megawatt cap? I You I understand you prefer no cap.

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: I would say the financial cap, I would be really interested in how exactly that works because I I think the mechanisms of it is unclear of what is what is it counting towards that cap. Is it just exported energy and the compensation there? I think there's some nuance that would be a little more challenging. I think megawatt caps are have been used in other contexts when it comes to specific incentive programs. They're more easily understood and tracked, I think. So if we had to have one, I think a megawatt is better for residential, but I also just do not believe a cap would be a a a good good idea.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Understood. And, appreciate, you guys, supporting the idea of really getting to the bottom of the best way to protect consumers across the board, because there are issues out there. Not, industry has had a reputation of being not that far off from the third party electric supplier. Not everybody, unfortunately, there were always good third party electric suppliers, and then there was some not so good. So we wanna make sure that the taxpayers, the residents of our state, don't don't get bamboozled.

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: Certainly. And and PURA has done already some good work in in within their sphere, within the ARRIS program of providing protections like disclosure forms. There's now annual compliance filings that every solar installer has to make to PURA every single year. That includes copies of marketing materials, things like that. So there there have been some protections. There's also a bill in the general law committee on solar consumer protections that moves the ball forward. I'd say it's not comprehensive. It it's not everything, but I do think it's a useful step in the right direction. So we've been trying to to tackle this, but I I think it it demonstrates that it's one of those things that's challenging because PURA has part of the responsibility, DCP has part of the responsibility. So we just have to make sure we we get it right.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: One one of the areas that I think is a weak link is the financialization of the business where people sign contracts with companies that then flip them out like sec you know, like mortgages into the secondary market. And then the companies that they signed up with that the people signed up with no longer exist. They, you know, they sell off their income stream, and then they just don't hang around. And we we had that when we did our first solarized program in Essex, the company that, you know, the the sustainability committee went to great pains to interview people. And then, the company was gone within a year or two of when the program was over. So, anyway, our representative Hughes.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you, mister chair. I think you really touched on, in terms of the caps, the what what caps, intersecting with consumer protections, what would you say to a phased in approach? I think one of the things the state is wrestling with is how to, consider if we were doing incentives, if we're doing subsidies, if we're doing tax credits, how to understand the costs of that. And I think that's why the the proposal is to have one or the other. But what would you so that we can we can count on the costs in the first year, three years, five years. What would you consider in terms of a phase out of caps? And which which way would you go?

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: So first, I would say on the the incentive and payments side, I want to be clear that, like, not every payment that goes to a homeowner who installs solar is an incentive that, you know, there there is a value for that energy that is being produced that would have otherwise been been procured elsewhere. Mhmm. And so when we talk about incentives, like, I I just don't want us to think about everything that these programs are compensating the energy as an incentive because that's only above what the market value Fair. Of that that energy is. So, I I think that's one of the challenges with with the caps. But from the cap side, understand that the need for having some type of kind of planning, ability to plan, see what these costs are going to be going into the future. And and I think that's important. But when we're talking about programs that hopefully are rate payer net beneficial that are providing more than, you know, more benefits than than costs, I don't know that there necessarily needs to be a cap. Like, the energy storage solutions program is currently uncapped, but it's because it provides a two point o rate payer impact measure score. So and anything above one is net benefit to nonparticipants. So it has a very strong cost effectiveness. So limiting that just limits the benefits that are provided to all ratepayers. And and really for the the cap side, like, I I can understand targets. I can understand wanting to ensure that we're we're trying to plan. And currently, the RS program does look at deployment levels. It is aiming to maintain within a certain range. And so those all factor into that decision making at PURA. But the the problem with the cap for the residential market is the, you know, residential systems are fundamentally different from large scale projects, which are longer development cycles. You're like, if you're bidding in for, like, a SCF contract, you know, that's a contract that is paying the developer for that compensation. For a residential tariff, that contract is between the utility and the homeowner or the household that's receiving the benefit. And so having some competitive process or a cap really is it doesn't fit with that because they'd be bidding their own value in against other homeowners. And that that's just fundamentally different from, like, a commercial setting where you're setting it based on the cost because the cost is separate from the the tariff compensation. The the second piece is just the timing. You know, homeowners, when they wanna install solar, they wanna install solar. They don't wanna be told in the middle of the year. Sorry. We hit our cap in June. You have to wait till next year to install your solar. That's gonna create the friction. That's gonna just make people just not install solar. And that's, I think, just fundamentally problematic to say, you can't participate. You don't get to do this for your own property. So that that's one of the challenges. And then as a business, we are an always on business. We have people working every single day, working on projects, developing. You know, if we weren't able to sell and install for six months, like, we would not be able to be in business. It's not like we have some other way to just make money and people can't just sit around for months on end. And so that's why residential programs generally across the country don't have caps, because it's just kind of fundamentally incompatible with the business model. Just like residential electricians and plumbers, like, we are electrical contractors. We're home improvement contractors and kind of rely on that ongoing business, which is distinct from the larger projects.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: One final note, mister chair, is that when, when homeowners are considering a project and they're trying to get estimates and they're trying to get their roof, like, reviewed for, you know, capacity, I suppose, and the space, homeowners are told, well, we we gotta hurry this up because we might reach the cap, and then you won't get, you know, for your area, for your town. So there's this unintended consequence, I think, of urgency that feels like a hard sell that we talked about before when when the homeowner has no idea how close we are to that cap and has no idea if this is Sunrun making a hard sell or, you know, saying you gotta act now just like, you know, the TV commercials. So so it it does add an undue burden, I think, on the consumer to, hurry up and make a decision and, pull the trigger on the project when, you know, without that, we could be more at least more thoughtful about what we're looking at.

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: I certainly agree. But it it does create potentially those those cliffs, those rushes. People are going to maybe submit more speculative applications

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sure.

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: To try to fill up that capacity and claim a spot, even if the project may not actually move forward. You also have just the natural churn. As was mentioned one of the prior testimony, not every project that starts gets completed. And so you could have it allocated, but that doesn't mean you actually deploy that many projects. And so I think all of those are are considerations that that make it a little more little more challenging. And and also just if there are delays, if you have to wait for a solicitation or for next, year's annual cap, like, that it was mentioned earlier, time is money. And, like, if we're adding more friction, more delays, like, that's gonna just undermine consumer confidence. It's gonna increase the costs. And at a time when this successor program is going into effect at in 2028, when the federal tax credit is going away for all types of systems. And we are kind of desperately looking to find ways to reduce costs through permitting, through interconnection, so that we can absorb the loss of that tax credit and still have a value proposition for consumers. Like, adding more uncertainty, more risk, and more costs, I think, would be pretty difficult. Because this this transition, like, I don't wanna while we support it and we think it's the right direction to go long term, like, it's not to say it's without risk or complexity. And, but I I we really need to have some level of certainty, and and a cap just creates a lot of uncertainty.

[Rep. Anne Hughes]: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and explaining that. Thank you, mister chair.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Representative. Thank you, mister chair. It's great to see you. In your testimony, you wrote extensively about energy storage and, as we've talked quite a bit today, now with this pairing of distributed solar and, battery storage and a lot of different use applications, now, obviously, we're seeing this in the, residential space. So, I was wondering if you can kind of expand on that and, because I think there's a lot of opportunities.

[Kyle Wallace (Senior Director of Policy, Sunrun)]: Yes. Appreciate the question. And, you know, energy storage has grown, substantially over the past couple of years. The energy storage solutions program is part of that. But I I think we're now at a moment where the technology has matured at a point where it's it's able to be installed outside in most situations where previously, even as recent as a year or two ago, most batteries could not, which made it really hard to install batteries in New England because that because of the fire code requirements, you essentially would have to build a new utility closet for the battery in a certain part of the house. And there's all sorts of requirements and costs associated with that. So, it was really hard to do batteries. So the technology has advanced and that's made it better. It's also become less expensive. And so that's on a per unit basis. And so we're able to incorporate it into solar more easily now than we could have two, three years ago. And just the availability of batteries is also significantly higher. I was here eight years ago when we were first talking about the transition from net metering to the RRES program, and the industry was opposing moving to instantaneous netting with the lower export rate at that time. A large part of it was because storage wasn't mature enough. We couldn't install storage. And so if you tried to make that transition eight years ago, five years ago, it would have devastated the market. I think we're at a different point today where storage is viable to do. In Massachusetts, over 70% of our solar projects are paired with storage. And we see that number rising in Connecticut as well. And so, I think it's it's something where the market is already moving in that direction. And so, it is it's a better time to make that transition through changing the RS program structure, to encourage storage because it's something we can do. And the benefits are substantial. Like, solar has done a lot in providing rate payer benefits by itself to date and across the region. But really, as we think about the later evening peaks, as commissioner Dykes talked about earlier this morning, storage is how we're going to help continue to reduce those peaks. Because right now, the load growth that we expect from electrification, from potentially data centers and things like that, there's an opportunity to have that load reduce rates if we can manage the costs of building out the system associated with serving that load. If if we get more load growth, but we just spend the same proportion as we do today, rates will stay the same or go up. If we can reduce the amount because we're using storage and being more efficient with the system that we have, then that's that's where you have the opportunity to put a downward pressure on rates. So storage is gonna be really critical for making energy affordable in the long term.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you, mister Wallace. And thank you, mister chair.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Anyone else?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So much, Kyle. Brian Carmody followed by Doug Stefan Doug Stefan. See, Brian's online.

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: Good afternoon, chairs and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Brian Comerty, Director of Finance in Northeast Development for Renew Developers. I'm working on projects in Massachusetts today, so I thank you so much for the opportunity to testify remotely. We're here regarding section two of HB 5,340, the successor to the NRES program. We're asking for a targeted pilot program to run alongside that successor, focused specifically on distressed municipalities, brownfields, and grid reliability. The program we propose is simple. Add a rolling RFP moderated by the Connecticut Green Bank for winning bidders to install on small brownfield and blighted commercial properties, just one to two acres, two megawatts of fuel cells to provide reliable baseload power, carbon capture equipment to contain CO2 emissions, and indoor hydroponic farms growing seven tons of pesticide free produce year round donated to local nonprofits. These are unproductive blighted properties off the tax rolls, often at an eyesore. We put them to work. Connecticut has an opportunity to do something rare, a single pilot program that improves grid resilience and increases power supply, combats food insecurity and adds more local farming, returns blighted properties to the municipal tax rules, and does it all with carbon capture, clean sites adding clean energy. And on timeline, which I know is top of mind for this committee, our projects build in about twelve months. That doesn't include permitting and interconnection queues, but with leadership from this legislature to streamline permitting and interconnection approvals, we can have several megawatts of ratepayer friendly baseload power on the grid in about a year. At six projects per per municipality, our proposed cap, that's 42 tons of fresh kale, bok choy, and spinach and lettuce per year flowing into vulnerable communities at renews expense while also adding tax revenue and clean energy to the grid. If you look at the entire program size we're proposing in the written testimony, 50 megawatts statewide, That's 25 projects, each producing at least seven tons of produce annually, which is a total of a 175 tons of pesticide free leafy greens that renewed developers would be paying for and pumping out into distressed communities. That equates to 2,300,000 servings of high nutrition leafy greens per year for Connecticut residents. Renewed developers is ready to invest and build now in 2026 if the legislature provides the framework. We urge the committee to include our proposal as a critical complementary component to the NRES successor program. Thank you. I welcome any questions.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. Thank you, Brian. Anyway, my my cochair has a few questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for this innovative, concept for a pilot. Given that you focused on remediation or use of of brownfields, Have you done any sort of inventory to identify the number of opportunities in the state of Connecticut for a pilot of this nature?

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: I can tell you just informally, with the experience we have over the last few years, we've talked to several mayors and first selectmen that have told us, please come help us take these properties, these blighted properties, put them back on the tax rolls. We've already identified and purchased and cleaned up at our own expense two brownfields throughout the state in two separate, municipalities, one a town, one a city, and they weren't hard to find. So I think there's no shortage out there. And certainly 25 you know, in our pilot program, we're proposing it would be 25 sites to get up to 50 megawatts in this pilot, and 25 sites across the state should not be a challenge based on the, again, conversations we've had with many town leaders and city leaders.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: So that sounds like a lot of opportunity, but we do describe this as a pilot. You know, I'm getting the sense, as you say, if you wanna run this parallel to the existing incentive program, that we're looking at some sort of incremental funding as opposed to siphoning off funds from the existing program. Where would those funds come from?

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: Well, to be clear, we bring the all the capital expenditure for the equipment that we've put on-site and pay for all of the engineering and environmental consultants and all that all that kind of thing. Each one of these projects, to be candid, is gonna cost roughly 25 to $30,000,000. We take care of that. We're not asking for anything from the state. The only thing with that we would like to see continue is the rec, the state rec for the class one renewable. That obviously does help us, with the project to make it more, well, to make it affordable so that we can we can do it to pay down the loan that we're gonna have to to buy all of that equipment to set it up. And then like I said, we're we're using, you know, profit to to feed on an awful lot of people. So that's pretty much it. We're you know, we we've got in the recent written testimony some some numbers that we can that we can start to talk about, but the the wreck is all that, you know, we're talking about for the state's responsibility.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I'm liking this better and better if it doesn't cost the state any money. It's all. But it it it's a very unusual combination of factors. Obviously, you're focusing on brownfields. You're talking about solar and the like, but you also have this agra of the the

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: Food insecure. Yes. Yeah. That's right.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: That's an interesting kicker in the sense. Is is that critical to the program, or is it just something that is identifying a need given the number of food deserts we have in the state?

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: It's it's the latter, representative. It's completely you know, we want to give back as responsible citizens and and developers in the state. We don't need it to create for the energy side of this thing to to get more power and affordable power and clean power onto the grid, which is the goal. No. We don't need to grow. You know, we don't need the hydroponic farming, but it's something that we can fit into the project to take care of another issue that is clearly, you know, every state is dealing with right now, not just Connecticut. There are some serious issues with food deserts and and insecurity throughout throughout the country.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, again, I find it a very intriguing combination and, you know, certainly, whether it's used for hydroponics or not, the idea of utilizing all the electrons coming out of the process as efficiently as possible is very attractive. So it's something we will consider. Other comments or questions? If not, we will consider further. Thank you for your testimony today.

[Brian Carmody (Director of Finance & Northeast Development, Renew Developers)]: Thank you all. Thank you, mister chairman and esteemed committee. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. We have up Doug Stefan, followed by Diane Lorachella. Diane, go ahead. Well, now Diane, I saw you a moment ago. You're you're up next? That's strange. Alright. Well, maybe we lost her and we can come back to her later. Next up is Chris Phelps followed by Michael Ungaro. Chris.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Thank you, representative, members of the committee. I'm Chris Phelps. I'm state director of environment Connecticut. We've submitted testimony supporting House Bill fifty three forty, the solar bill as we're hearing it called. And, excuse me. I apologize. We support, the generally support the provisions in the bill to expand and extend Connecticut's existing solar programs and evolve them as we go forward through time. We do note some comments in the bill, but I'll be honest sitting here listening to the, testimony of Kyle Wallace from Sunrun a little while ago, I've got nothing to add to what he said. It was as expected, very comprehensive and I thought very intelligent about where Connecticut can go with those programs, particularly the residential program. I'd like to focus my comments on, therefore on section five of the bill regarding plug in portable solar systems. Our colleagues at Environment America and in states across the country have done a lot of work with, with policy makers on this emerging issue, in recent months. Excuse me. Sorry about that. This section would in effect, allow plug in solar systems to be sold and used by consumers, in Connecticut. It would give anyone who who wants to go solar a simple, affordable, and quick opportunity to do so because these systems are designed to fit a need in the market and a need for consumers that comes below the large rooftop systems we might see on our on our on our homes. These are designed or intended to be systems that you can literally just buy from say a Home Depot and plug in as as if they're an appliance in your home to produce a little bit of solar power and help reduce your your electric consumption. They don't require subsidies, they don't require interconnection agreements with the utilities, they don't require, in fact they really shouldn't need to be eligible for, net metering tariff compensation, for example, because they're really intended to primarily provide enough power to help offset your consumption, not to export any significant amount back to the grid. That's one of the beauties of these systems. The bill before you, the language before you, is modeled I think in large part on what a lot of other states are looking at doing and what Utah has already put into statute, as I'm sure you're well aware. And it's designed to ensure that these systems can be sold and used by consumers first and foremost safely to ensure that they meet that they're certified to, safety standards through, underwriter laboratories or or a similar entity, for example. That they comply with the building code to ensure that they are can be safely plugged into the wall in your home without causing any harm to your wiring. But also so that they, for example, the UL code requires that they have a device to ensure that in the event the grid dose goes down, any small amount of generation they're producing does not get exported to the grid, period. I hear the time we're going off so I'll wrap up there and say, we do make a couple of specific suggestions in our bill, or in our testimony, excuse me. That also that point in particular to some of the conversations we've had with the electric distribution companies, for example, UI and Eversource. And I think also speak to some of the comments I saw made by, consumer counsel, Claire Coleman, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about that or or any other aspect of the bill if you

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Chris. Yeah. Let's continue to dwell on this for a moment. Sure. Under the broad category of what could go wrong. And we we appreciate your comments. Obviously, there are those who are concerned that some homes are wired, in either rather ancient form or have been jerry rigged in various fashions whereby, simply trying to plug it into the wall could have complications. You know, maybe you only have a non grounded system and you're taking a three plug into a two plug and hoping for the best. It does sound like that's maybe fraught with some risks. So maybe you could elaborate further on some of your suggestions, having had the conversations with the EDCs.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Yeah. Yeah. And I, that actually is exactly where we started our thought process about this issue. And we started looking at it and talking to people about it months ago, is how do you address that? And, there are a number of ways I could answer that, but one is to point directly to the work that UL Labs is currently doing, and they have created a certification standard that's still a work in progress. They start very conservatively and rightly so with such standards for any appliance being plugged into, a home's wiring. And these are really in that sense appliances, just like any other electronic appliance we make. But specifically, they, for example, with that standard, are requiring a basically a unique sort of plug to be designed. Still a plug that you would have installed in your home, but you might have to have an electrician come do it for a little bit. It wouldn't be necessarily initially fully plug and play, but that is in the interest of ensuring that the concern you're talking about representative is addressed upfront before these these products are made available in the marketplace to the consumer. I think that makes sense as a starting point for this type of, technology to mitigate. So, so that if you're trying to plug a system into a home, those questions about, well, what type of wiring, how old is it? Does, does a home really have are addressed upfront by the appliance itself to ensure that they can be used, safely.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You know, it's nice when a state like Connecticut attempts to, to, to regulate something that is sold broadly, we run into interstate commerce issues when we try to do something differently. But don't we have an obligation to require the manufacturers of these products to fully educate the consumer on the appropriate and inappropriate uses. They're taking on tremendous liability by taking a product that that has been represented as totally safe and plugging their home into it. Is there more that we need to do? In your investigations of Utah or any other state couple this with an effective education program? Yeah.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: I don't think that's something that would be necessary or required in part because a lot of the kind of hypothetical what ifs that you might, that you're alluding to in terms of how people might choose to use these. The idea is that they would be addressed and it basically prevented by the manufacturers

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: making these products so that they're certified to these standards.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: I'd also point that the specifically, and again, there's an interaction between the safety certification and the legislative language, and, and, regarding how, you know, how much these systems, how large these systems can be allowed to be. They can be no more than 1,200 watts as, as outlined in the bill. Certainly, I think though that they're, what's the word I'm hunting for, you know, could be room for consumer education to, you know, even product labeling to make it clear that you can't, and that they're, my understanding is the certification standards would prevent them from being, say, daisy chained together so you could buy three units and plug them all in together in a chain. But product labeling that says, no, you can't do that. That's not how these are supposed to be used. Just like that's not how you're supposed to use surge protectors, for example. So, that would be something to look at. I'm not aware of language to that effect in any other states, mind you, but certainly, it's something to look at how that could be implemented alongside this.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And perhaps, the other big thing that has been raised is what happens after a power cessation, and then coming back on, and being a whole another factor even with a small circuit like this potentially being the catalyst to problems. Is that something you've also seen addressed in other States?

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Yes. I think every state that I'm aware of with legislation on this addresses that specifically, and I know, your bill does as well. It's in line, four zero one where it specifically requires that these, the systems if sold and used in Connecticut have to have a device to, you know, to shut them off so that they are not energizing the grid in the, in the event of a power outage. That also is actually required by the, the UL standard that I referenced earlier. So there's a definite layers of emphasis on that very basic, frankly, safety, requirement for any system like this that you might be plugging in.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: One last question. What's the stop a homeowner from installing four or five or six of these things? I understand there's no, real need to get into net metering because a single system wouldn't make a much of a difference, but let's say you've got like 20 panels connected to this thing. Isn't that kind of violating the spirit?

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Yes, actually. And they're, they're not designed for that purpose. That's, you know, to be clear, that's clear, that's absolutely the case. We would not support that. Once you're in that range, you're in the range of wanting, needing a rooftop solar system like was just being talked about by Sunrun. There's one practical answer to that. And then there's the design of the, of the systems is designed to prevent them from being used in that manner. But as a practical matter, if you're generating that much, if you plug that many systems into your home and you're generating that much electricity, you're going to be exporting a good amount of it back to the grid when you're not home in the afternoon, for example. And that's where net metering comes in if you have a rooftop system as we all know. You want that net metering tariff, you want that value coming back. This is, that's actually one of the reasons why we, and we specifically mentioned this in our testimony, why we urge the committee to to specify clearly that not only are these systems, exempted from interconnection agreements with the utilities, because they're small and any electricity they send back to the grid is de minimis. But they also be specifically ineligible for net metering credit because that right there creates an economic disincentive for anyone to do exactly what you just said amongst other important reasons why that would be part of the policy. So that actually, as a practical matter, putting that language into this bill, which is Utah has that language in there as other states are, are proposing to, make these systems ineligible for net metering credit, actually speaks to exactly the concern you raised as well. So probably the most effective way to do it. Great.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You've heard testimony earlier from others that, given the state of the industry for a plugin, there's really no need for Connecticut to study it, but there's enough out there to give us confidence. We could implement this without untoward outcomes. Do you agree with that?

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: I do actually, I've spoken with the, state representative, Republican from Utah who, really had the idea for their bill, for example. And I know he's already bought and installed his own system and is using it. I think that the framework is very simple and frankly, very conservative,

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: that

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: that is before you in this in this legislation. It really, by requiring certification to these safety standards and the conservative nature of those standards. For example, it addresses concerns that you might have in a landlord tenant situation where, you know, a tenant can't just willy nilly plug something in their landlord doesn't know about and cause a problem for the landlord, for example. A lot of the, the very real questions that arise that one might study, in all honesty, are specifically addressed to this language and in real world experience are proving to have been addressed in Utah and in other jurisdictions at this point. That's our that's our take on the issue. I think, again, because this is a very conservative, approach to starting to figure out how to do this in terms of how this legislation is crafted. I think a lot of the hypotheticals that one might come up with wouldn't be allowed under this framework right now. So the risk isn't there. So I think we could move forward and, and learn pro appropriately as Utah and other jurisdictions doing, learn as we go, how this could be expanded to make it even more plug in, more DIY friendly as time passes. But this is a good starting point to get the market going, in our estimation.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Chris. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't gonna necessarily ask questions, but I mean, this is very intriguing to me. My understanding is that it, that there wouldn't be a way for it to flow to the grid, that it would cut off if you are not using the energy. Is that not the case?

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Partially. So, it definitely is, and it's written literally in the, in the legislation that if the grid were down, that, you know, there was an outage that the system would have a cutoff and be incapable of energizing the grid. And that's just a basic safety measure for alignment. As we all know, the systems would hypothetically be able to, because they're sized in the stat, in the bill they're written and allowed to be sized up to 1,200 Watts in capacity. Hypothetically, it could be producing a small amount of excess electricity that would be going back to the grid. It is such a diminimous amount though, that that doesn't really pose in theory doesn't pose too much of a problem. It really, but they are intended to, to any, have any export that happens during normal operation be de minimis, you know, very, very minimal. That is really kind of a key element of the, of this, idea, I go for want of a better word. But no, I wouldn't say that they, you know, they're not intended to have literally no export to the grid at any time. But the safety measures are in there to assure that if there is export happening, it's not happening in an unsafe manner because that's a no brainer.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay. So if it goes back onto the grid, technically, my understanding is because most of our meters don't really, figure out which way the energy is flowing. People that use this and their energy is flowing back to the grid, it technically would look like they're using energy. So they might get a higher bill.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: And I know, Eversource has talked about that and we've had that come up in our conversations with them. I think, the, what the utilities have said is for certain, for anyone with an AMI meter, that's not an issue. And so we know that. And so I think in, in, in talking to them and, and having conversations with colleagues in other jurisdictions, it's not hard and fast that it has to, that they have to be charging back their customers in that scenario. Again, we're talking such small amounts of electricity that it may not even be noticed, but, I think there's a need to have continued conversation with Eversource in in that UI on that question, whether it needs to be addressed, and I don't know that it does, mind you, but whether it needs to be addressed, say, at PURA, how that situation is dealt with would be important because you don't want a situation. I think what one part of what you're getting at is no one would want a situation where, I as a consumer go out and buy one of these systems, plug it in, but it's generating an extra kilowatt a day that perversely I'm now getting charged for.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Right. You could That's

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: that's the we want to avoid that scenario and for certain. Yeah. And we are in conversations with the utilities about how best to do that. Mhmm. We hope and think that there is a way to, to, to do that. That doesn't, for example, lead to, limiting these systems availability only to someone who already has an AMI meter, for example.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Is there a way to cut off the energy if it if it reaches the amount that it exceeds the amount you're using?

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: My Yeah. Sorry. My understanding is that yes, there are, ways to devices that you can basically put on the, the the the panel box in a home or installing one of these that would just literally prohibit it from having any export of excess generation to the grid. The the problem that that arises raises for the consumer is one of cost. It adds significant cost to the system. And that's one of the attractive parts of this policy is that these systems are so affordable that people can do them without

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: even thinking about needing, an incentive, a subsidy or whatever. So it's

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: a, there's a tension there, a little bit of friction there. There's a tension there, a little bit of friction there, but that is a possible, approach, just not a deal. So we, we, our preference would be to work, continue working with the stakeholders utilities, for example, to try to find a pathway that avoids that particular solution, being necessary.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Any other, yes, representative.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you, mister chair. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for your testimony. Just following up on, Representative Mara's questions about power going back to the grid. That would be, for someone who has a traditional non AMI meter, and it would only be for what's not self consumed, right? Like the Yes. First first these systems are feeding the circuits, and if you have your refrigerator or other things running, it would be just for any excess that goes back.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: That's exactly right. Yeah. Okay. So if, if I had a system, that 800 watt system, and it was producing 800 watts at the peak on a sunny day, let's say, but my refrigerator, my stove, my air conditioner, we're consuming 600 Watts in total. Now we're talking, that's what I mean when we're talking about the hypothetical for a relatively small de minimis amount of export back to the grid and only during small periods of the day in theory. And that's one other point is a lot of the conversation has been about these as 1,200 watt systems, 1,200 watt. We repeated that number a lot, but actually there there's a lot of opportunity here for people to just go buy a 400 watt panel or a

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: 600 watt system panel.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: And it introduces that level of flexibility for the consumer who wants to dip their toe in the water, so to speak. But yeah, but yes, that is the answer to your question. It's after your it's, it's met your existing consumption, any excess is what's being exported.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: If anything. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, rep winter. Any other questions or comments? If not, we're intrigued, Chris. We'll see we where we if we can get there.

[Chris Phelps (State Director, Environment Connecticut)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Next up is Michael Ungaro followed by Mark Mitchell. Please proceed.

[Michael Ungaro (Chair, Sierra Club Connecticut Chapter)]: Good afternoon, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Mike Ungaro. I'm a Hartford resident, a retired attorney, and I'm currently serving as chair of the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club. Thank you for providing the opportunity to submit testimony on HB five three three nine and HB five three four zero. Regarding HB five three three nine, I agree with the, with the prior testimony and, and I support streamlining solar permitting to save on costs and increase access and do not believe we need a study as the others have testified. I, I would, instead support mandating uniform permitting across the state with something like the solar, app plus automated solar permitting system, which is a ready made system that is proven to work and apparently free as I learned today. Regarding HB fifty three forty, I would support reauthorizing the residential non residential and shared solar programs in a way that encourages solar growth in order to both meet our emission reduction goals to address the climate crisis and to help transition away, from our oil and gas energy structure that has burdened us with some of the highest energy costs in the country for decades. But I take issue with, with certain provisions of HB 5,340 that would keep us on a track that would fall short of our emission reduction goals and that would serve to maintain our unaffordable reliance on oil and gas or at least delay the necessary transit, transit, transition away from fossil fuels. I get into more detail on my written testimony, but specifically I do not support reducing export compensation in the residential program, limiting the community renewable energy program to low income subscribers or including a cap on the non residential program. I instead would support encouraging energy storage with incentives for batteries and providing funding for both the low income program and a community renewable energy program for residents of all income levels. I do support adopting PURA's proposals on first ready selection and standard offer compensation rates in a non residential program because that will accelerate the launch and completion of viable projects. I also support enabling residents to install plug in solar and eliminating interconnection agreements and fees for such systems. This would greatly increase access to affordable clean energy, especially for residents who are unable to install traditional rooftop solar. Plug in solar has been widely adopted in Europe and has proven to be safe and popular. It makes sense for us to be, for it to be made available here as well. Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Now you hear your testimony very on point and rendered quickly within the time limits. I don't see any questions or comments. We're very pleased to see our club is paying close attention to what we're trying to accomplish here.

[Andrew Belden (VP, Renewable Programs & Strategy, Eversource)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. Next up, we have Mark Mitchell followed by Carrie Lynch.

[Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative)]: Good afternoon. Chairs Steinberg and Needleman and members of the committee. I'm Doctor. Mark Mitchell. I'm a public health and environmental health physician. I also convene the Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative. And I'm here to speak today in support of HB 5,340. Low wealth residents of Connecticut need access to low cost solar energy from reliable sources to improve their health and help to manage their high utility bills. Connecticut has more natural gas power plants and more air pollution than any other state in New England. Black and brown people are more likely to live near these facilities and suffer from asthma and other health conditions such as learning disabilities from the pollution from these power plants. I believe that we need to create more portable plug in solar as well as rooftop solar canopy solar and community solar in environmental justice communities. We need to close the polluting power plants as quickly as possible, particularly those that are in environmental justice communities. I'm also strongly in support of renewal of the NRES, RRES, and especially the SCF, the community solar program. Community solar should be located in environmental justice communities as long as these communities actually receive equitable benefits from these community solar locations. And this would include getting the energy as well as the cities and towns getting the taxes. I also support the proposed pilot rooftop solar project in environmental justice communities. Those who have the greatest health burden of dirty fossil fuel power production should be first in line to get the benefits of our clean energy future. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, doctor. You know, it occurs to me in your conversations that, targeting the community that could really benefit from having renewable energy options is, not simply symbolic. It's actually a pathway to, give them agency on their own energy usage and the like. It reminds me a little bit though of some of the confounds we've had, for example, with EV charging stations and, environmental justice communities and the like, but this could be potentially part of the solution if we vertically integrate, solar generation and storage. Wouldn't this facilitate, more people being able to access EV charging?

[Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative)]: Yes. I think that it could, very well facilitate that, you know, as you know, pollution is not equally distributed through, throughout the state, and traffic is not equally distributed. So EVs are really important for reducing pollution in urban areas. I actually have a map of the distribution of pollution from diesel in Connecticut. And I know you can't see it from here, but, you can clearly pick out the urban areas, and you can also see along the, I 95 Corridor in the Southwest that there's a lot more, pollution. And so, you know, EVs and electrification is really important for us to reduce pollution. And again, this is associated with asthma as well as learning disabilities. We know for example that people that schools that are on the downwind side of a highway have lower test scores than schools in the same neighborhood on the upwind side of the highway. So this is not just a theoretical thing, it really does matter. So thank you for your

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: It's a pretty stark statistic that you you quote there. Couldn't be clearer. I don't have any further questions other than to suggest we appreciate your support of these initiatives as we try to make sure that all the renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives we consider are as equitable as possible. Other up. Representative Baumgartner followed by representative Muschinski.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you, mister chair. And it's great to see you, doctor Mitchell, and, always appreciate your continued advocacy, to support, our communities, in particular, our EJ communities. My question actually centers on one of the bills we heard, HB 5,337, and that conserving district heating system incentives. I know in our conversations, I know you're very passionate about the Capital Area Systems project. And I know that would involve a thermal loop. Right? But in that case, what you have suggested and many individuals have suggested is a zero carbon thermal loop in the form of a geothermal loop. And so, my question to you is, do you think supporting initiatives like that is a Would go a long way in achieving some of the emissions reductions and health impacts that you've articulated today?

[Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative)]: Yes, thank you for the question and it's great to see you, Representative Baumgartner. So yes you know as you know this building itself is on a thermal energy loop. And we need to convert this to a 100% clean energy. You know, we're in support of the project in Bridgeport to have a demonstration project in Bridgeport. But we need to do it here in the capital city also. You know, as as you saw, the pollution is concentrated in urban areas like Hartford, and the state is contributing more. And, you know, they've paused having natural gas So right now, they're, they are having to replace the system and to upgrade the system. And what we're saying is that while they're upgrading it, they should move to a 100% clean energy system like the governor had promised in his executive order. Twenty one zero dash three dash zero three. So yes we still need to. They haven't decided to move forward with the clean energy but we believe that they should because it matters it matters to the health of our residents here in Hartford. The the ability to earn money to pay taxes to get good jobs. It matters to have clean air in order to do that and so and clean energy in order to do that. So yes we would like to see that also included in in this bill.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you for your thoughtful response, doctor Mitchell. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Mishinski.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Not a question, but I just wanted to thank you for coming up and never letting us forget about the people that are subject to asthma attacks every day. Hurts their educational achievement, hurts their jobs, hurts their performance at work. And when we go back and forth on the types of energy that we prefer for Connecticut's future, there is an air pollution piece of that puzzle. And when the more we can move away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy, the better off all of our people will be and we'll see the asthma go down. So thank you for coming in here and very faithfully mentioning that over and over again so we don't forget those people.

[Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative)]: Right. Yes. And and thank you, for all of your years of service. We're really gonna miss you, here at the capitol, and your, advocacy, on behalf of, of low income people on behalf of your community in Wallingford, and on behalf of all Connecticut residents, you've done a great service and I want to thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank thank you. I I just want to say, you highlight two things that are really important. I think although the availability of quality health care in poor urban communities and poor rural communities is one of the major causes of bad health outcomes for sure. But vehicular air pollution and power plants being located in urban environments typically, which is where they were all built originally. And I just want to say it one more time. We came through a very, very bad winter. Many of our older power plants especially, but not only our older power plants, are dual fuel. So natural gas emits a lot of CO2. And that has a broader profound impact on the climate. But burning oil, you know, in a close quarter urban environment really has a terrible impact. And we burn it when the weather gets really cold or when it gets really hot. And it's a measurable difference. The amount of NOxSOx emissions that come out of a oil fired power plant in two weeks equals the amount that comes out of a gas fired power plant in one year. And that, you know, I've been talking about air quality and air pollution. You know, in the 1950s and 60s, we cut cities in half by building highways in, through, and around them. And people suffered. People who live in cities suffered from that and they continue to suffer from that and they continue to suffer from power plants that in order to keep the grid running, switch over when we run into a natural gas issue during the dead of the winter. So thank you for your advocacy and, I appreciate your comment.

[Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Environmental Justice Leadership Collaborative)]: Yes. Thank you, Senator Needleman. Yes. We know that the, that the highways were deliberately, placed in communities of color, not only in Hartford, but, you know, New Haven, Stamford, Bridgeport, and across the country. We also know that the power plants started in urban areas, and that they are already but as their new ones are added they're continuing to be added in communities of color. We know that the power plants are more likely to be in high asthma neighborhoods even though they can contribute to more asthma in those and we know again that Connecticut has more of these kinds of power plants. So we need to move to clean electric energy and close these natural gas and oil, power plants. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, thank you, doctor. Always good to see you. Next up, Carrie Lynch followed by John Langdon. Carrie, welcome.

[Carrie Lynch (Climate & Energy Policy Manager, The Nature Conservancy)]: Good evening, honored chairs, senator Needleman and representative Steinberg and distinguished members of the Energy and Technology Committee. I'm Carrie Lynch, Climate Energy Policy Manager at The Nature Conservancy. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of two bills today, House Bill 5,336 and Senate Bill three twenty. First, TNC supports House Bill 5,336, an act concerning advanced nuclear energy. The Nature Conservancy is an organization committed to both environmental conservation and deployment of clean energy. We believe that it is important to look at all potential zero carbon energy sources to reach our energy goals, and we acknowledge that nuclear power has a role to play. We have been consistent about our conditional support of nuclear energy in the state and have submitted testimony and comments with our specific points many times over the years. With this in mind, we support the intent of this bill that will require the Connecticut Council for Advancing Nuclear Energy Development to conduct a study and make recommendations concerning skilled labor needs and advanced nuclear energy industry. As part of our current and future energy portfolio, nuclear power at the state and national level faces several unique but not insurmountable challenges. One of these challenges is the workforce necessary to support and grow nuclear capacity. The Advanced Act of 2024 was passed with broad bipartisan support and signed into law in July 2024. As part of the Advanced Act, the US Department of Energy has allocated a 100,000,000 to establish the nuclear reactor safety training and workforce development program. We strongly urge Connecticut to take advantage of these funds or of the program training to bring highly specialized and high paying jobs to the state. Second, we support, senate bill three twenty enact establishing a work group concerning electric transmission facilities and electric grade capacity planning. This bill will create a working group to examine and make recommendations concerning transmission siting and facilities and planning. The Nature Conservancy's environmental conservation priorities guide our efforts in energy resource planning and siting along with the infrastructure necessary to support it. We understand and agree, therefore, that there is a great need to develop transmission projects that integrate clean energy resources to reduce pollution and improve the affordability and reliability of electricity for our communities. Thoughtful, thorough, and holistic transmission planning is key to our engagement and actions. We strongly support transmission planning, particularly long term planning, and have followed and commented on national, regional, and state transmission programs and documents for many years now. We have several recommendations or clarifications regarding the actions and output of this proposed working group. These recommendations include, one examine the cost effectiveness of the transmission procurement at the state level to include a broader range of gets and a t t s and transmission projects. Three examine methods to increase project transparency and engagement Four, expand transmission planning coordination from community to interregional scales. And five, include environmental conservation priorities and project planning and development. We have submitted testimony regarding these bills. And with that, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Carrie, thank you as always for your your testimony and your very specific focus on a number of the items we have before us today. I don't have any questions. We will review your your testimony as we wrangle this bill as we go forward. Anybody else with questions or comments? If not, thank you for being patient and for your testimony today. Next up, we have John Langdon followed by Chad Higgins. Is John Langdon available?

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: I am here.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: There he is. Okay.

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: Thank you, honorable chair Rep Steinberg and chair senator Needleman. Thank you for having me today. Ranking and distinguished members of the committee. My name again is John Langdon. I'm an Oregon farmer, and I'm here today to offer testimony in support of house bill fifty three forty. I wanna tell a couple points about our farm here in Oregon. In, 2016, we made the market driven decision to seize an opportunity to plant hazelnut trees, an orchard. So after a hundred years of open field farming, we planted trees. We didn't have a town hall meeting. We didn't ask the neighbors. We just planted trees. Those those trees are 12 years old. They're about 20 feet tall, and we've we've blocked the view. We've changed the situation of farming completely on our farm. And one of the things we did with that was we sold some of our large open field equipment, 400 horse tractors, 30 foot equipment, and we bought smaller, more like ten, twelve, 15 foot. In fact, we repurposed some of our older equipment from days gone by to fit the geometry of our new back and forth between the trees. And when you grow a tree for twelve years, you don't wanna hit them. It's very valuable. You've got a lot invested in that. So why I tell you that story because we completely changed the practice of what the way we've farmed the field that we had for over a hundred years. So a lot of times, farmers are accused of not being willing to change. Well, I'm telling you if there's a market opportunity, farmers will pursue it. So the next point I would like to make is adjacent to some of our property, we have a substation that's not at capacity. So we've had solar interest solar development interest since 2002. And in doing that, we've had solar developers or land men solar interests come to us every year for twenty years, and we were able to learn about panel efficiency, ground mount, single access trackers, all these different systems. And we felt it was responsibility because we were close to interconnection to learn and figure out how we can contribute to the inner need energy needs and and make our farm better. Fast forward to three years ago, I started to learn more about agrivoltaics as far as cropping, and I met our next guest, doctor Chad Higgins. And so I took it upon myself to become the most educated agrivoltaic farmer or person who understands that world. And we kept hearing there was a lot more in Europe. There's a lot more farmers doing it in Europe. So my partner, Jana Jenkins, and I, we went to Europe twice, and we visited more than a dozen sites. Many of those academic, but some of those were working farms. And we saw every configuration of solar and plant and growth, and we learned both here domestically and abroad about the microclimate and then the, what I call, the the innovation dollars provided by the SolarLease. So I just wanna say that the farmers can adjust and the farmers can learn to do this between the panels as good as they can do anything else.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. We really appreciate you're doing the legwork for

[Rep. (Unidentified) ‘Jensen’]: us, you

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: know, a better understanding of the opportunity. What if you wouldn't mind, why don't you continue with some of the other insights you developed in having visited the, European farms and, farms of The

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: US? Yes. Thank you, chair Steinberg. So when we went to Europe, we went to Austria, Germany. We kept here, and there was more. We actually my partner, Janet Jenkins, got us I was a

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: speaker at the third Agrivoltaic conference in Europe, and

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: it was, like, a and it was, like, a 150 PhDs in Farmer John. But they loved that a farmer was there. And for me, the project that's proposed on my land is 1,588 acres.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: For a

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: lot of people, that scale is scary. But for me as a farmer, that's an opportunity. If I'm gonna adjust my farming operations, it makes sense. When we got to Europe, we saw a different scale. Because of their land constraints, we saw much smaller projects. But two megawatt projects, if there's 50 of them, it's still a 100 megawatts. And so we saw virtually every configuration that you can think of with the multitude of cropping system, everything from barley to I mean, they they were doing all kinds of different things. And to them, it was a it it was almost commonplace. And the public and the policy had kind of accepted that that's part of the electrification of their country and the independence of their power production. So what I try to stay in my lane towards is can the farmer adjust and can agrivoltaics not only be real, but it can be a can it be a net benefit to the soil and the farm? So my belief is if it's done correctly, agrivoltaics, solar installations can save the farmland because then it's not put in other types of urban sprawl. And if it's done correctly, we can use that microclimate and those innovation dollars to have a cropping system that is improved from what it was. The solar is going to be the higher value proposition, but that's what creates the new climate and the innovation dollars to allow us to do something different back and forth in part time shade.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I like the way you phrase it, the sort of the adaptive quality for farmers. What other accommodations have you seen that made the inclusion of solar panels possible for different kinds of farm uses, if you can comment. Obviously, you mentioned, having the right equipment to keep from damaging trees and the like. Was Right. There anything else that was a sort of a typical accommodation?

[John Langdon (Oregon farmer, agrivoltaics advocate)]: Yes. Thank you, chair chair Steinberg. So what we saw is it kinda starts with what mister Delagala said. If you look at the farm, what they do, what they've historically done, what they'd like to do, and what they think they could do with a little bit of money and something different, A lot of times, it's adjusting to what could we do and what kind of system do we need. Now, obviously, it has to work for solar development or there's no project. But what I saw is the farmers were willing to have the conversation with the developers. This is what I need. This is how I need it to work because there's a market opportunity that I would like to seize, or I think I can do what I've always done better. And a lot of it is understanding the shade. If you look at the nursery the nursery industry, they've had decades to experiment with shade cloth and percentages of shade, those microclimates. Greenhouses are a microclimate. The open field farmers like myself, we've had zero time to learn how to use it. Well, take a twenty year project, a thirty or four project. You take three or four or five years of experimentation, I believe you can have ten, twenty, thirty, fifty years of success. And I do believe the soil would be better largely because what we saw in Europe and what we've seen even at the academic level is with some solar income from selling those extra in those extra electrons, you have the maybe it's a different fertilizer or more fertilizer or more efficient practices or regenerative farming, but you as a farmer have no way to fund it. And when you can make those bets and make those improvements and you have a way to fund it and you have this new microclimate to learn to utilize, I am extremely confident that the solar production and the agribusiness can both be improved if the farmer is included in the conversation.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: That's great. I I love the emphasis on enabling the farmer to be innovative, that this is actually a tool. And, honestly, your confidence gives me more confidence that we can pull this off, so I really appreciate it. Are there other comments or questions? If not, I'd like to say we reserve the right to talk to you again as, sort of our resident vault agrivoltaic, expert, because, we wanna make sure we get this right out of the gate. Thank you.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. Moving along. We have, Chad Higgins followed by Sean Reel. Is Chad with us? I think he he's coming to us from the West Coast perhaps. Maybe that's why he's not available. So let's go to Sean Reel. If Chad shows up again, we'll we'll bring him back. Sean from Earthlight Technologies.

[Sean Reel (Director of Sales Operations, Earthlight Technologies)]: Thank you very much for having me. My name is Sean.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Please proceed.

[Sean Reel (Director of Sales Operations, Earthlight Technologies)]: Thank you. My name is Sean Reel. I'm the director of sales operations at Earthlight Technologies. It's a Connecticut based residential and commercial solar and energy storage developer. We serve all communities throughout the state. We support the overall goals of HB fifty three forty. We support the creation of successor programs for solar and energy storage. My comments will focus on a few targeted changes. I'll skip over some of the changes that have been raised by Kyle Wallace and others, but just areas where the bill can be strengthened to provide the greatest value in the residential and nonresidential programs. On the residential successor program, we are supportive of the language changes that would allow PURA to change how it currently sets rates. Currently, rate design is focused on lowering the value of solar generation through a non bypassable charge. We're encouraged by the PURA successor report that advocates a bit of a paradigm shift that it would lower the value of solar exports to the grid rather than emphasizing a charge on solar production. This change better reflects the benefits of pairing solar with storage and results in, you know, low profile benefits and demands demand benefits to rate payers at large. We do believe it's important that export compensation remains above the basic supply rate so that solar continues to make financial sense for customers. We would also support completing a VDER study so rates reflect real system wide benefits. We also support the creation of the consumer protection task force with a key recommendation. Earthlight participates in a number of working groups meant to promote customer education, provides customers with disclosure forms that reflects the reality of what they're ins of what they're going to be getting. We've provided similar testimony in the Connecticut general law SB two thirty three, which would create customer facing materials that would be provided to all interested customers. Now this consumer protection task force has been passed twice in the last two years, but we believe it did not materialize because prior legislation did not appoint a chairperson to convene the group. We believe this legislation should, you know, definitively appoint a chairperson to set the cadence and structure of meetings so a final report can be released by the deadline and, you know, active, substantive steps taken to protect consumers interested in going solar. I'll pass over the, the need to have a buy all option for solar. I believe that others have already pointed to 84% of those systems, using the buy all. The last point I would say is that we would, support changes that would remove the advanced maturity requirements that are required that would be required under the new NRES program. Requiring permits and approved interconnection is a step too far, especially when attrition rates are at, you know, 1.07%. We believe that what really needs to be looked at is interconnection related delays, which are actively tracked in the residential program, but not so in the nonresidential side. I wanna thank you very much for, giving me this opportunity, and I apologize for going over the time.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I thought you worked very well within the limits we afford you. Let let's just talk about interconnections for a second. Do you have, any suggestions for, how we could significantly improve on that seemingly endless problem?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Well, I think that part

[Sean Reel (Director of Sales Operations, Earthlight Technologies)]: of it is goes into the knowledge, you know, the information, the data that is at our disposal. On the residential program, for example, the the utilities are required to provide quarterly filings on how long it takes newly submitted projects to have interconnection approval, granted. On the nonresidential program side, you can see a filing that is issued once a year, but it's it does not go into the level of data that's really needed to make to make recommendations. So you can't really extrapolate trends as far as, you know, whether the system sizes are, you know, exceeding one megawatt, if they're, you know, under a megawatt. I think that there's just a real lack, you know, dearth of data on the nonresidential side that we could look to how how we could look at the residential program in a sense to inform the data gathering on the nonresidential side.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I like that idea. Thank you for that. I'm I'm always in favor of more quality data for telling us how we're doing. Thank you for your comments in all these different sections, and we hope you stay invested as we try to forge consensus and get a bill passed this session. Any other questions or comments? If not, again, thank you for your time and your patience. We will, now try, Chad Higgins, who has now reappeared, followed by Tom Swan.

[Sean Reel (Director of Sales Operations, Earthlight Technologies)]: Thank you very much.

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: Thank you so much, honorable members of the committee. My name is Chad Higgins. I'm a associate professor at Oregon State University and a farmer, and I've spent the last twelve years doing research on integrating, solar systems with farming. I'm actually just happened to be working out on one today. This is a system for, cattle grazing. Ground mount solar and and ag tend to come into conflict because the the land that satisfies the needs for ag also tends to satisfy the needs for solar. And, you know, I I work towards making practical solutions and accommodations, that the solar can make, that keeps the solar economical, and still allows the the farm to, to be profitable. John mentioned my name earlier. I I, met him, as he explored solar, and and it's been great to see him blossom and create more value for his farm farm with solar. So I I don't have a stake in Connecticut's politics, but I did wanna make myself available to the committee to answer questions if you had specifics on what a integrated energy farming solution looks like, and what we can do, to ensure that farmers can continue to innovate and, be good stewards of the environment. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, thank you for your perseverance, particularly all the way from Oregon. And I don't know anybody else who actually, positions himself right in front of the kind of array we're talking about. That's pretty special. I like to

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: But more importantly, we we hope to learn from from your experience. What do you see as the biggest obstacles for a farmer moving forward with a project like this?

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: Mostly, it's education, making sure that there's a way to teach farmers about what they can ask, the accommodations of solar folks. Solar, given the federal incentive structure at this moment, has pretty tight margins. So, we can ask for small changes to maintain land access, but we can't ask for huge changes. So, making that negotiation so you honor the farmer and their needs so they can do their adaptation, and not taking the solar out of profitability is the key. We have developed a series of plans, designs for solar to do just that. We've done a lot of economic analysis on that. So we can really get into specifics if you'd like.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Do you have, templates or other things that you typically share with farmers to help them understand their options? That's something we'd very much like to look at. Yep. That's great. Yep. Anything else we we ought to know with regard to setting up a program such as this, and that your state's a little bit more advanced than we are?

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: I I'd say don't regulate on design, regulate on land access. Typically, I've seen folks stipulate that design has to have these parameters and that parameters, and that tends to force people into suboptimal solutions just to be in compliance with the law. I've also seen states regulate acreage that you can't put this in many more acreage, and that actively incentivize solar to take as much land percentage as they can, which pushes the ag out of viability in some cases. So, thinking about a farm management plan, and how the tractor pathing is integrated into the solar design, If that's if that's there, then farmers love to farm. They're the most innovative folks out there. They'll find a way. But if you put the fence line too close or you, hang your wires incorrectly, it blocks the row, and you can't farm it anymore. I basically got it down to four words. Don't block the row, and if that's the case, we can farm it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, that sounds pretty simple to me. So to your point, if it's not design based, it's an acknowledgment of the unique geography of that particular farm and where the opportunities are?

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: I I think so because every crop and agronomic system has its own challenges and equipments, and what you actually need is a plan for tractor pathing, that is testable and demonstratable. And so long as the tractor can get through, the solar geometry as designed, then farming can happen. The plans that we have, the most typical lightest modification of standard solar, keep 95% of the land fully accessible to machinery. So going into more bespoke things should be better than that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sounds good. Tractor pathing sounds like something we need to discuss a lot in our future. That's a new one on me. Any other questions or comments? If not oh, representative Winter.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you, mister chair. When you said regulate land access, is that the tractor pathing you mentioned? Or is it Yeah.

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: That that's what I that's what I mean. So, I've I've been doing this, long enough, and I've attempted to farm in arrays that were never designed for farming that were what I call solar prioritizing arrays. And, no sane person would farm those. They are such a pain to do that. We have made adjustments to the design that are pretty minimal, that have to do with handling cables to keep them out of the way, how you drive the panels, should they be articulated, and how you place the fence lines to make sure you have appropriate turn radiuses for your tractors. And just those three modifications for most standard solar array designs opens up a large amount of room to drive a tractor through. So when I'm talking about tractor pathing, the tractor path dictates the percentage of land that's still available to mechanical tillage and mechanical harvesting. I don't know about your labor situation in Connecticut, but out here in Oregon, labor is is such a big cost that farming, almost has to be mechanized. So, our priority out here in terms of adapting things is to keep that mechanization, fully viable for the farmers.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: And are there other states that have legislated this land access issue?

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: Not that I'm aware of. Even Oregon is hasn't hasn't done this. So but this is what I found to be the biggest determinator sorry. Determinator. Determiner on, how farmable the array is, from our research.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thanks. Thank you for joining us from and showing us the finished product behind you.

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm out here. We're we're actually setting up our spring is coming, so we're setting up our our experiments out here today.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: A farmer's work is never done. No problem. Thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate it. Next up is Tom Swan followed by Connor Yacaitis. Tom, are you with us? If not, let's go on to Connor followed by, we yeah. Amanda Trinsi DeVito. Good to see you, Connor.

[Connor Yacaitis (CT League of Conservation Voters)]: Good to see you as well. Senator Needleman, representative Steinberg, ranking members, and members of the energy and technology committee. My name is Connor Ikaitis and I'm here on behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters in support of HB five three four zero. Connecticut must continue investing in renewable energy if we are gonna meet our climate goals, stabilize electricity costs, and build a more resilient energy system. Recent geopolitical conflicts and instability in global fossil fuel markets have driven spikes in natural gas prices, which directly impact electricity rates for Connecticut families and businesses. Expanding in renewable energy as part of our portfolio, especially distributed solar, helps protect consumers from these price shocks and strengthens our energy independence. This bill takes several important steps to move Connecticut forward, including modernizing the state's distributed energy programs and expanding community solar. But, today, I really wanna focus primarily on section five of the bill, which authorizes plug in solar, also known as balcony solar. And just a quick anecdote, when I was a kid, I spent a year traveling around the country in an RV with my family visiting the national parks. They installed an RV solar panel unit and I found it fascinating, as a kid that we could generate our own power. So it's really cool that I get to be here to talk about this. Plug in solar systems are small solar devices that can plug into a standard household outlet and generate electricity for the home. These systems are typically about the size of a solar panel or two and are designed to offset a portion of the electricity use. The significance of this technology, for Connecticut residents is access. Today, many Connecticut residents cannot install rooftop solar. Renters, condominium owners, and residents of multifamily housing often do not control their roofs or may not have suitable insulation sites. Plug in solar offers these households a simple and affordable way to participate in clean energy transition. As I said, these systems are small, limited in this bill to 1,200, watts, but when deployed across many households, they can make meaningful, meaningfully reduce electricity demand and help lower energy costs for residents. Increasing access to small scale solar can also support energy efficiency and conservation. When households begin producing some of their own electricity, even if it's a small amount, they often become more aware of how and when they use energy. That awareness frequents, frequently leads people to take additional steps to reduce their consumption, such as upgrading appliances, improving insulation, shifting energy use to more efficient times of the day, or simply remembering to shut off a light bulb. In this way, distributed solar can encourage both clean energy generation and smarter energy use at home. Plug in solar is also already widely used in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, where millions of households use balcony solar systems to reduce their electricity bills and independence. Importantly, this bill includes strong safety protections, which we've been in touch with, Eversource and UI as well as CMAQ, and we wanted to address, those concerns, still working with them on that. But, as Chris Phelps mentioned earlier, plug in solars must comply with the UL 3,700, which is a nationally recognized safety standard developed specifically for these systems. The standard requires protections such as anti islanding, automatic shutoff, ensuring, you know, protections for both utility line workers and consumers during outages. At a time when global fossil fuel markets remain volatile, expanding access to renewable energy is one of the best ways we can protect consumers and strengthen our energies state's energy future. For these reasons, CTLCV respectfully urges the committee to support this bill. I appreciate your time and available for any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I think you covered it well, Connor. Representative Baumgartner has a question.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Yes. Thank you, mister chair, and, really appreciate your testimony, Connor, and certainly the, advocacy your organization does for environmental quality, for our entire state. You brought up something very interesting with respect to CMEC. Many members of this committee, including Representative Mashinsky, myself, and a handful of others represent municipal represent communities that have municipal electric utilities. And so, you mentioned some of the investor owned utilities that obviously have the lion share of, you know, maintain the lion share of the grid and distribution network in our state, but there are a handful of communities that do have MEUs. And so, in that vein, we do want plug in solar available to those rate payers. And in many cases, including the town I represent, it's been very difficult to establish residential solar programs. So, in what ways do you think the plug in solar can actually better support the efforts for members in our community that would like to solarize our neighborhoods?

[Connor Yacaitis (CT League of Conservation Voters)]: Sure. I mean, I don't wanna speak for CMAQ, but in the conversations we've had, they've been very positive and then there seems to be a lot of excitement. I think MEUs are are more closely tied to the communities that they serve than, you know, the larger utilities. So I think there's an opportunity and I think this is where we as advocates can come in too to really drum up support at the community level, to educate folks about these systems and how they can, you know, reduce their bills even slightly and produce a little bit of their own energy, I think is an an exciting opportunity to so to go into those communities, we're always happy to come to yours, and host discussions, I think is a really an important step that where people can realize that these these opportunities are out there.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner]: Thank you, Connor, and thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Well, Connor, as usual, you see us at our, somewhat more, reduced energy levels, but we really do appreciate the testimony of the voice.

[Connor Yacaitis (CT League of Conservation Voters)]: I was gonna say I was reading through the written testimony, and I saw someone, a Reginald, the the North Atlantic Whale. So I I was sticking around to see if the whale would show up, but it's good to be here with all of you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I've I'm I'm surveying the room. I do not see the whale, but It could be in the bathroom. Yeah. Thank thank you for Connor.

[Connor Yacaitis (CT League of Conservation Voters)]: Yeah. All have a great great night.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Next up is Amanda Trinci Davito. I don't know if she's here, followed by Adam Woda. Is Amanda here? If not, Adam is up. Welcome, Adam.

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: Good evening, members of the committee on energy and technology. Thank you for allowing me to testify today on House Bill 5,340. My name is Adam Woda. I'm the director of strategic development at a company called dispatch energy. We are a distributed generation provider who has principal experience managing over one managing over $1,500,000,000 worth of generation and infrastructure assets. We recently completed the the Bunnell block project in Bridgeport, which is now providing four megawatts of clean affordable electricity to over 3,000, of UI's low income customers through the shared clean energy facilities program, the SCF program. I'm here today with a specific request to extend the natural gas delivery charge rebate, typically referred to in utility tariffs as rider DG So that includes SCF projects selected by PURA after 12/31/2023. This is the current cutoff, and we want to make sure that the benefit that we're able to provide reaches low income customers as the SCF program was created to was created to serve. As you're well aware, SCF's purpose is pretty straightforward. It expands access to clean energy and delivers on bill credits for customers who wouldn't otherwise be able to access these savings. These are low to moderate income customers, many of whom are renters and could never install clean on-site generation, either because they have insufficient credit to access financing, or they can't install on-site power because they're a renter and their landlord would never permit that. Right now, the policy is clear. If a fuel cell is built to serve a large commercial customer on-site, that project can qualify for relief from nearly all natural gas delivery charges. That's for a large commercial industrial customer. We do believe that to be good policy that's directly aligned with the state goals, but there's a gap here, especially as it relates to the SCF program. When a fuel cell is constructed under the SCF program, which specifically serves, you know, off-site low income customers, this does not receive the same benefit despite that serving those customers who actually need bill relief the most. In 2024, the General Assembly extended rider DG to fuel cells selected by 12/31/2023 to participate in SCF. This was evidenced by Bridgeport's recently completed four megawatt project. The policy was effective in terms of driving new development for this really critical grid hardening infrastructure. That project would not have come to fruition if not for the the DG rebate. I understand that there was an expectation that this would be modified in the future to include later SCF project, but that expectation has never come to reality. So that's why I'm here in front of you today. New projects are now left without this abatement and very few, if any, projects have actually been able to be built in construction and constructed without the rebate. These SCF projects are uniquely important. I refer to them as as unicorns, which my my coworkers don't always like, but they're really unicorns for the following reasons. They can be deployed relatively quickly. We're at a point in time where we need more power right now, not in five years. They harden the grid in the existing areas that allow for new load to organically organically grow, which really lowers the barrier for new entry for future investment in Connecticut. I know we're getting over time here, so I'll I'll try and wrap this up. But there are energy intensive businesses like manufacturing or even large offices, which are really constrained by how much power is available on the grid. These fuel cells are energy dense. They're very clean in terms of knocks and socks, and we need them to service low income customers. We talk with other states all the time that are wishing they had this sort of firm, you know, clean, nonintermittent base load. The other thing which other, you know, people are speaking to today is we are seeing in real time how quickly geopolitical tensions can create gas price spikes even beyond these near term issues. We're at a point where the federal level policy decisions are creating ongoing instability. This really increases our financing costs and it puts us in a point where it puts us in a position where the projects are no longer economically viable. So neither the dispatch neither dispatch nor the industry that is, you know, asking for the extension to the DG rebate is looking for any sort of windfall at the expense of the rebate. We're simply looking to make these projects come to fruition at all, which is already an extremely difficult and tall task. So I I think the ask is clear, but I I really appreciate the time today and, you know, appreciate the ability to to develop in in Connecticut's energy infrastructure space. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Adam, thank you for testimony. We appreciate it as well. I find it a little ironic that other states are somewhat envious of our SCF program, and we're a little frustrated with it. This is an opportunity for us to reconsider our existing programs and make sure that they are fulfilling the objectives that we set out for them initially. If you had your druthers, what changes would you make to our SCF program so it really would, first of all, generate more projects on the ground, but more importantly, meet some of our long term goals?

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: The the name of the game right now is distributed infrastructure and distributed generation that can be deployed quickly. If you do large scale infrastructure, that takes, you know, five years to come to fruition. The reason that we do distributed generation is because it moves quickly. Right now, someone else had mentioned interconnection issues. That's not necessarily specific to the SCF program, but projects do take a long time to to connect into the grid. So it means it's a long time before we're actually delivering power. You know, there also I just think needs to be more programmatic certainty in order for us to go out and develop a project. It costs us a lot of time and money. And as there's fluctuations, either whether it's with the the DG rebate or fuel cells getting removed and now maybe putting now maybe they're being put back in, it's very difficult for us to allocate time. So, really, we we benefit from from certainty, which is something we we lack at the federal level and really hope that we can get support at the state level.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, I know the businesses always seek certainty. I think you're always gonna be frustrated when it comes to governments providing that. Some degree of predictability is about as good as it gets with government, but we take your point on that. And I think we also take your point that, the appreciation, the value of distributed distributed generation is something we don't talk enough about. And, the more projects we have that, give us reliability and resilience, maybe if we're talking about some storage opportunities, even, some, peak shaving, the, better off we would be and the less, let's say, vulnerable we are to some of the geopolitical, changes that may go on. So, I think we all take your point on that. Representative Winter has a question.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for your testimony. The our consumer council's testimony said that they didn't think fuel cells should be included in the SCF program because they're able to operate at market rates and don't need rate payer incentives. What what would you say to that?

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: So a few things. First of all, my my principal focus is on the DG rebate, just to make the existing projects that were awarded actually come to fruition in the first place. But secondly, the ability to operate at market rates is is not how projects get financed or or built. Market rates fluctuate. And as things go up and things go down, you know, that's just another piece of of instability in the project. So if you think about the input, which is gas, that fluctuates all the time. If the output is also at market rates, that also fluctuates. When both your input and your output are fluctuating, you're not gonna be able to achieve financing for the project. So one of the key benefits to the SCF program is that it's a fixed rate. So while, of course, it's not a windfall for the developer by any means, it allows us to go out and if structured correctly with the rebate, obtain some level of financing to actually get the project built in the first place.

[Rep. Mike Winkler (likely; transcribed as 'Winter')]: Thanks. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, Adam, we hope you stay involved. Your input is particularly valuable to us. This is, as I said, an opportunity for us to rejigger our our key programs and prepare them for the coming challenges we have as a state. So we hope you stay invested

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: in those. Yeah. I mean, just just to get a final word in. I mean, Connecticut's done a fantastic job at this so far. The the policy that you've put in place has spoken for itself. You have distributed generation that is operating in a clean fashion. The the Bridgeport project being a perfect example. Just extending this policy and, of course, you know, rejiggering it for the current environment is is, the smart decision and and we support that. Happy to be involved as as as much as we can.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, we're gonna keep complimenting us. We'll give you another minute. But we we it's always good to hear. Thank you for that, Adam.

[Adam Woda (Director of Strategic Development, Dispatch Energy)]: Yep. Thank you, everybody. Have a good night.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Next up is, Todd Piscura followed by Mark Scully.

[Todd Piscura (Asset Care Manager, BD Canaan)]: Welcome. Welcome. Co chairs, senator Needleman and representative Steinberg and representative Mayer, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Todd Piscura and I'm the asset care manager at BD Kanan. BD operates a high output, low margin manufacturing site that depends on uninterrupted uptime, reliable power, and predictable operating costs. Today, one of our most significant challenges is power reliability. We regularly experience voltage fluctuations and periodic outages that disrupt operations and continuous high speed manufacturing. Even brief interruptions cause cascading impacts, lost production, equipment stress, yield loss, and higher operating costs. While we have taken extensive internal measure steps to mitigate these risks, there is a limit to what manufacturers can control behind the meter. Long term stable grid performance is essential to sustaining and growing US based manufacturing. For these reasons, BD supports Senate Bill three two zero, which directs the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to convene a working group to examine the siting and use of electric transmission facilities and long term grid capacity planning. The bill calls for evaluating delays in transmission siting, future capacity needs, integration of distributed energy resources, and cost allocation of necessary upgrades, with recommendations due to the committee, 07/01/2027. As you consider the makeup of the working group, we strongly encourage, including a representative from Connecticut's advanced manufacturing sector. Companies like BD operate some of the state's most energy intensive and highly automated facilities. We have direct experience with the operational and economic impacts of grid instability, as well as the opportunities created when power is reliable and modernized. Including advanced manufacturing ensures the working group fully reflects the need of businesses that rely most heavily on high quality, stable, and remain competitive. SB three twenty already brings together key agencies and electric distribution companies. Adding an advanced manufacturing representative will strengthen the group's recommendations, ensure they address the real world demands of employers who depend on Connecticut's energy infrastructure. BD is committed to Canaan, but competitiveness is not static. Energy reliability and grid modernization increasingly determine where manufacturing investment occurs. SB three twenty is an important step toward ensuring Connecticut remains a strong, attractive home for advanced manufacturing. Thank you for your consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. It's something that hadn't occurred to us, and it makes such good sense to have somebody with that kind of perspective and expertise as part of the equation, particularly if that's the audience we're trying to help. So I think that's really good input, and it's something we will consider as we discuss the bill further. Are there any other questions or comments? Where do we have such targeted good ideas? Senator Niemann.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I just had a chance to chat with you in the hall, and I just wanna thank you for coming. It means a lot. And quite honestly, the reason I asked you what what you did in Connecticut was, it is a to be a manufacturer in a energy intensive business in Connecticut is challenging, and, we definitely need to take your opinion into account here. And there are not that many companies that probably use as much electricity or power in general as you use. So point well taken. And hopefully, if this task force comes to be, we can add somebody from high usage manufacturing, especially with the electronic sophistication that new machinery has. That's the real key. It's not only the price. It's the bandwidth is very much narrowed in terms of what won't ruin your machines.

[Todd Piscura (Asset Care Manager, BD Canaan)]: Exactly, senator. Thank you very much for considering that.

[Sen. Norm Needleman (Senate Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You had to know. He has his own manufacturing business.

[Todd Piscura (Asset Care Manager, BD Canaan)]: We did talk about that in the

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: whole week. Brought that up with you.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Okay. Alright. Yep.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony today.

[Ryan Menard (Manager of Construction, Comcast)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate your time.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Mark Scully followed by Eric Vertkler.

[Mark Scully (President, People’s Action for Clean Energy)]: Co chairs, Steinberg, Needleman, ranking members, Mara and Fazio, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mark Scully. I'm president of People's Action for Clean Energy, a nonprofit promoting clean energy in in Connecticut. I I'm here to speak in support of bill five three four zero with a few, with a few suggestions. The first would be that you consider restoring the buy all option into the NRES tariff. You've heard, I think, from members of the industry that, the overwhelming majority of businesses use the buy all tariff. Now, I think there are compelling reasons. It provides a predictable and a stable source of revenue for those for those businesses.

[Dr. Chad Higgins (Associate Professor, Oregon State University)]: So

[Mark Scully (President, People’s Action for Clean Energy)]: I won't I won't repeat some of the testimony that you've heard. One additional point I believe is rated is, is related to my second recommendation. And that is that we allow commercial customers to deploy more solar than they have in their local meter. Of course, you need a bio tariff to do that and that ability was granted by this legislature a few years ago and PURA was unequivocal in recommending a buyout tariff and I think addressed it many of the concerns address many of the concerns that were raised today about competitiveness. But the ability to put to put more solar on your roof or on your parking lot or on your grounds, then you have local meter need for, I think is a very important point. And I don't think it's gotten the attention that it needs. We need lots more solar and restricting that solar to where the load is really doesn't is very arbitrary and is going to constrain the industry. And it's letting people put solar where there's room will preserve Connecticut farmland and forests and allow us to deploy a lot more solar. So I would encourage you to both restore the bio option and to to enable projects larger than the local meter. Finally, I was very encouraged to hear all of the discussion today about not just the cost of solar, but the benefits of solar. But I think as you know out there in the real world, when people listen to the debate in Connecticut about solar, you get the impression that it is only a cost item. Right? That we're now gonna spend $16,000,000 on SCAF and 25,000,000 on NRES, and that's a cost. That's a burden to rate payers. In fact, what's what's in that money? It's money that we're paying to developers. It's pre purchases of a clean reliable source of energy that not only benefits the grid and customers directly, but by entering the market at a zero marginal cost actually lowers the clearing price of electricity. So it was wonderful to hear, commissioner Dykes today say that we need to recognize not just the cost, but the benefits. So my recommendation would be, of course, we all want a value of distributed energy resources study. That seems to be heavy lift. But let's ask PURA to do an annual accounting of the cost and the benefits. They have a terrific report. It's the Clean and Renewable Energy Report. It's a great source of information for us. Put the information out there that we can quantify not only the cost of solar, but the benefits of solar. And I think it will inform the debate. Thank you for your attention today.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Mark, for your testimony. It does agree to me that, we seem to have such difficulty in coming up with a distributed generation study, given how helpful it could be for us determining our energy future and making tough choices. But I really appreciate your comments as that, it's an obligation for all of us to make sure that we're connecting the dots between the investments that, we're making as a state and how rate payers actually benefit. And as I was saying to commissioner Dykes, if there is some way we could really quantify the soft benefits as we always are challenged to do and, acquaint the rate payer with the fact that by investing x, they're getting many times x in terms of savings or avoided costs would be a very helpful exercise. So too. Other comments or questions? If not, you know, you've seen this, Mark. End of the day, we just don't have the quite the same zip that we used to.

[Mark Scully (President, People’s Action for Clean Energy)]: You're still going though. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. Thank you, Mark. Next up is Eric Verkler followed by, Teresa Eichel. Mark, please proceed.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sorry.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: It's no problem at all. Thank you for giving me, giving me the opportunity to speak. I look at solar in Connecticut and, sometimes I wonder what we're doing. I think that when we put laws or regulations in place, they fall into three categories. One is something that encourages solar. One is something that allows solar and one is something that restricts solar. And so anything that we do is gonna, we have to look at it through that lens. And, I look at what Pure is doing right now. They're trying to create a successor program, to NRES and they are, eliminating netting. So netting solar, about half of the businesses that I talked to, they're gonna need netting. Right? They're trying to control their energy costs. Energy costs are going up and netting is what allows that to happen. A lot of them that we're talking to now are trying to take advantage of the, the energy storage program. Energy storage is tied with netting solar projects. If you don't have a netting solar project, you're really not going to do a battery product. You don't have net metering with battery alone. Now you look at the, the bill that we have in front of us as mark just testified to, it's getting rid of bile. So we have an opposite agency, sorry, not agency, but this body here doing the opposite of what pure is successor program is doing. There's been a lot of talk about core forest and farmland and all of those things. And the focus getting it away from there is putting it on rooftop and putting it on paved areas and filling those roofs by all as necessary. There was some good work done here in this body six or seven years ago to allow oversized projects. There was a tax component that was left out. A lot of work was done just last year to now have those projects, property tax exempt. Our phones are being flooded with people that are trying to do this before the, the safe Harbor deadline of July 4. And we're going to pull the rug out from under them by not allowing by all. It's just been one year since we allowed that to happen. Within these conversations, there's also the, the, advanced maturity that we're looking to do. That's going to make it much more difficult for some of these business owners to even want to step in and make the effort. I don't see that going very well, and we are developers all the way through to installers. So we're we're seeing all ends of it. And I think that that would be a very bad idea. There is talk about interconnection. There is talk about rate payer impacts. We have to pay attention to those things, the interconnection costs and delays. They're coming from a different a couple of different reasons. And we work very closely with utilities. There needs to be more transparency. There's a few different ideas that I have that can help with some of the delays and some of the costs. Just as an example, though, we had a project that a year ago we submitted for, we received the results of the interconnection. There's a transformer upgrade. Obviously there's a cost associated $4,500 That was the cost of the upgrade. Then you go through and you do all the designs and you win the win the award and, and you get the permitting done. And now you're ready to make the payment. You go back to them for an updated cost. And there's a, you know, there's some cost increases sometimes, right? There's inflation. And what have you, We got the cost letter this week. It's $1,850 sorry. It's $1,805,100 dollars a 311% increase. I could see a 3%, 10% would have seemed like a lot, 311%. So we asked utility why it's the same exact equipment. You're doing the same work, the product size, say the same, everything, say the same, the cost letter, the scope is the same. And they just said, prices went up there. There makes no sense, right? There needs to be transparency in where those numbers are coming from. And that's a small scale project, but you multiply that out or you look at a bigger scale product, you have the same thing happen. And it just, there has to be some transparency there. Interconnection delays. I have some ideas on there. I know that I'm out of time. Perhaps a follow-up question would would give me some time, but you guys have stayed late and I, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for the, testimony and the leading opportunity for us to to talk further. Let me first start though with your discussion of the buy all tariff. You mentioned that, your your phone's ringing off the hook about those who are concerned about losing that tariff. Could you give us an order of magnitude of the opportunity? Should we restore that,

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: in terms of magnitude? So anybody that called in the past five or six years that was in one of these that needed the buy. All right. So they, they either had a warehouse or a large roof, great roof or solar, but they didn't have a large electrical load or there is a large electrical load, but they're not paying the bill. Like maybe it's five or six tenants and they're all on their different meters. So it's one system that's what's going to be necessary. You have a strip mall, you could fit a 300, 400 k w up there, but it's 10 or 12 different businesses. They need to buy all there. You're not going to do seven solar projects. That's just not cost effective. So the majority of the people that I'm talking to right now, well, historically it's been a lot of netting projects. There's been this buildup of products that couldn't happen because of that property tax law. And now that it passed, now that now we're going back to those people, more and more of them are coming to us. It's, I don't have a quantitative number in terms of megawatts or in terms of dollars, but, everybody that I talked to this week and almost everybody I talked to last week was in that camp.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Again, so from an order of magnitude standpoint, that that represents a lot of business for you?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: Yes, it does.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Okay. Moving on to your comments about interconnections. At first, the cost parameters where you've seen significant and, shocking increases from, one period to the next. You know, I have some sympathy for the utilities. They're dealing with the same, you know, supply chain issues. We've seen that in a lot of different technologies that supply chain timing has become much changed, and there are other world factors. But I can understand that it's very hard for you to, pencil out a project if some of those inherent costs could increase by 300%. What are you recommending that we perhaps, index it to inflation or require some, some reasoning for why things increase so much? Should there be a cap on how much they can increase it? What's reasonable?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: I think there's two different ways you can look at it or not two different maybe solutions. One of them is show your work. If your letter has a cost, show where those costs came from. And I think when that letter came out a year later and they're showing where the cost come from, they would be embarrassed to actually I don't know if I should say it that way, but I would be embarrassed to put something like that out. In Massachusetts, you can go on to one of their websites, one of their pages and say, hey, if you're doing this type of transformer upgrade, it's gonna cost this. And yes, they'll update those periodically. There may be some inflation as things go up, but if we had something like that, we wouldn't even need to go to them each time. Right. We could look at that and we'd know we'd have expectations. We'd know what they're going to be. But I think that transparency in where those numbers are coming from would change that or would would definitely help fix that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I think we all tend to favor more transparency and that sounds like maybe something we could, potentially legislate or at least encourage. Alright. Lastly, you dangle the possibility of getting even more suggestions from you with regard to how to deal with the interconnections conundrum. Alright. Please continue.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: Before I answer that, there's two different costs. And right now, we've just mentioned one. So when you talk about interconnection costs, you have an Eversource or UI, associated cost. So a transformer upgrade or maybe something with the grid that's gonna happen. So that's work that Eversource is doing. The Eversource is gonna charge the product. So we all understand that. A cost that we're not talking about is the means and methods and equipment used to do the interconnection that the customer is owning this equipment. And the utility is inserting themselves into that conversation. It's customer and equipment. It's reviewed by the building department, but they're saying, we're gonna tell you now what you can and can't do. And their requirements are so much more difficult and onerous than they are in other states or that they were here historically that those costs are rising also. So there's two different costs interconnection related that are going up drastically. And so we've been fighting this for three years to the interconnection working group and we've been completing stonewall on it. We haven't gotten anywhere. It's actually far worse now than it was three years ago when we first raised these issues. And Eversource is so emboldened that just a few months ago, one of their employees presented to 70 building officials and they said, this is how we want these to be reviewed, even though it's customer and equipment. This is the jurisdiction of the building officials. They said, we would like you to invite us in to these conversations, all of these site visits so that we can then have our opinions known on how this should be done. Those are causing delays. Those are increasing costs. And through the ten years of the Z rack program, they never once were involved in that conversation. So projects were built safely for ten years and now it's totally changing. So I didn't answer your question. I do have three ideas on things that can make that better, but I'm gonna

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: pause it. Move on. Let's stay on this for a minute, which is, first of all, I thought I heard you say that Eversource's requirements here in the state of Connecticut are more onerous than in other states?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: That's correct.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And have they ever justified higher costs to you than, say, for example, a state right across the the way in Massachusetts, why those costs would be lower in that we're both in New England and we're both have similar programs?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: So the answer is always safety. Every time we ask that they don't have a good answer, they just claim it's a safety issue. So you need to do this, this, and this because it's a safety issue. But there's an entire electrical code designed on safety that's used across the country. We are instantly familiar with it. Not me personally, but our electricians and our designers are. And they follow it by the book. Safety is paramount to us. That's why we we, we, we do a lot in safety at air flight. But there's never a good answer. So when they don't have a correct answer, I feel like the answer is just safety as a blanket answer.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Sort of like being against offshore wind for national security issues.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: I don't know anything about that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Yeah. This is disturbing, obviously. There are any number of impediments to moving forward on projects, but it's not so much the the arbitrary cost. It's the lack of a clear compelling explanation that concerns me most. Obviously, to your point, we're all focused on safety, but I would imagine the liability is yours and not Eversource's. So, you would be as motivated as they to make sure you have adequate safety.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: It's customer owned equipment that we are installing that the building officials improving, approving. So the liability has nothing to do with Eversource and they should not be stepping over those bounds.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: And, if you'd like me to answer your question on the three suggestions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. Now that I'm done exhausting my questions, you may continue.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: So one of them is meter ownership, and this is not the utility meter that you all think of. This is the program meter. So the Z rack meter or the M or the N res meter or whatever the future program is going to be. That's measuring all the power that the system produces for those, for the rec benefits during the Z rack program that was owned by the customer that was changed. At least this is under Eversource that was changed to, Eversource owned, which now brought the metering department, the meter engineering department, field engineering department into this conversation. All of these conversations that we're talking about deal with those departments. This is not the DG group that does our interconnection approvals. This is the entirely different groups that never were involved in projects. And if the meter ownership goes back in the next program to being owned by the customer, a lot of those problems will go away. So that's one. You look like you might have a follow-up question there.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: I'm just getting more excited. Continue.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: I can tell you, I'm not very excited. This is the last place I'd like to be. I didn't bring any notes for the first time ever. I've tried to decide to try that out. Meteor ownership. I'm sure Justin's watching right now wondering why I forgot the other two. Hold on a moment. When solar is being installed on a bio project, they're treating it as a new service. So they're meeting all of the INR guidelines of a new service. A new service that's going into power building is entirely different requirements than something where solar is coming into the building. It's not a load, it's solar providing the load, but because they're treating it and calling the new service, they're adding all of these different requirements onto it. So I think if they were to no longer call it that and it was designated as whatever term we want to use, but not new service that would totally change a lot of the requirements. And, I'm still blanking on the third thing.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Time to think on it back to your, your second point though, playing devil's advocate, couldn't the utility reasonably argue that because the building was not originally designed or wired for solar that it effectively is a new service project and everything should be reviewed?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: So they're they're talking about bringing in a new services. That's what it's going to interconnect because it's in front of the meter. Right? So we're not tying into that service. So they're calling a new service, but it's not, it's not a service that will see load, but they're saying somebody could, potentially in the future, make changes to this. And then it would be, it would have load. So obviously if that were to happen, a building official would review it just like they would any new service

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: in your experience. This is a little off topic.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: That's right.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: The level of of sophistication and understanding of building department directors in municipalities in the state, are you confident they're up to the job of reviewing the newer technologies that are coming down the pike?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: So they reviewed it during the first ten years of the Zurich program and there were not issues. Obviously, early early on in that. So, you know, fifteen, sixteen years ago is very new to them, but they did a lot of trainings on it. In some cases, they learned from our master electricians what they've come a very long way, and I do not have concerns with that.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Oh, any objection the utility might have is the building departments aren't up to the task. Your experience would say they've done a good job and there have not been, unexpected outcomes.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: Correct. And I would say that building officials are reviews are are reviewing complex electrical systems all over the state right now. Like, brand new buildings are going in all the time that are not solar.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Fair point. That's it for me. Representative Foster.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Just I apologize. I had was in another meeting, so I missed the beginning of your testimony. But I just wanna, make sure that I understand from previous conversations that we've had on this. Your ask for the committee is for us to consider requiring PURA's directive to be revised or for us to through statute revised statutes so that we have to follow the NEC article seventy ninety and seven zero five which follow a more clear demarcation and that's consistent with Massachusetts state practice, correct?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: That is correct.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: And in your efforts to navigate this issue with both PURA and, the utility company as you've worked on navigating this, there has not been reasonable resolution. Can you quantify how this has delayed negatively improved negatively impacted solar development that you were looking to do?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: So the review times are far longer than they used to be. A project that never used to even require a site visit now will require three or four site visits with sometimes up to five Eversource employees there. It's a much, much, much drawn out process. And in some cases, the re the requirements are adding not just tens of thousands, but maybe even a 100,000 to a project, which the project can't bear. And then that product would, would die.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: I think I'm a little bit confused because in the last six, five and a half years since I've been in office, we have on at least three different occasions advocated on behalf of, residential and commercial solar industry, this smaller compared to our district's, size of solar arrays otherwise. We have continuously tried to address barriers and delays from the TOs that have negatively impacted your ability to build solar in places where people want it. It'll decrease their local load. It'll add to sort of the benefit of, you know, grid solar. We have now have that confirmed through ISO New England that the roof mounted solar has a positive effect on the stability of the grid. And I feel like we have fixed a problem only for another problem with the exact same impact to pop up. Am I misunderstanding what's happening here? It just seems like we are consistently running into issues that like whack a mole. Like, you find we fix one bottleneck with the utility companies to approving solar projects and then this is another distinctly different one but it's having a very similar effect. Am I missing something here?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: I don't think you are. I think that you gotta wonder if they want solar or not.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: That leaves a lot for consideration. You know, we have, an Office of Legislative Research report, from Mary Fitzpatrick that she sort of outlined the jurisdictional, challenges and she gave some recommendations. We shared that report with you all and we've considered it. So, do you believe that there's a statutory pathway forward that we can resolve this problem if we just adopt that standard code guidance and adopt a pathway consistent with Massachusetts?

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: I think that there probably is. I think that this is definitely over my head when it gets to the electoral code and all of those things. There are some people at our company that are very smart at those things, and I am not even close to being one of them.

[Rep. Jaime Foster]: Well, That leaves me in a very awkward position. My PhD is in feeding people fruits and vegetables. So, I appreciate you coming and testifying before us. I think you've given us a lot to think about but I do think that there's a policy lever that's actionable. But I do think we have to think long term about what we're doing that's making it challenging to site solar. I hope you're, you know, we talked also about single common permitting in one of the pieces of legislation today. So, I think as a committee, there's a lot of us who are interested in really making, you know, reducing one's own load on the electric grid using local generation of solar, a pathway that's more viable, for businesses and schools and municipalities and agricultural industry. And so, this seems like a hurdle that we do need to fix before we can continue in that mission. And I'll just say for the record, I have a lot of grid scale solar that I'm not supporting necessarily the expansion in my district, but the kinds of projects that we're talking about here that are local business uses are distinctly and meaningfully different. And there's really no municipal complaint. They pay taxes reasonably or they're roof mounted and they don't, but they're like, the neighbors don't complain. There's not fire risk concerns that we're seeing with the big sites. And so I just I feel like these are the folks that are good actors. They're coming into space and they keep on getting knocked back and then we're clearing the road for other sides of projects that have lots of complaints. So I really appreciate you coming to testify. And for the record, I really want to support trying to make this fix happen this session. So thank you, mister chairman and thank you, Eric.

[Eric Verkler (Member of the public)]: Thank you, Jamie.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Eric, been very helpful. I think we'll talk more. Anybody else oh, any questions or comments? If not, thank you again for your patience hanging in there. Next up is Terry Eichel followed by Christine Feeley.

[Theresa (Terry) Eichel (Executive Director, Interreligious Eco-Justice Network)]: Good evening. Good evening. How are you? Hello. My name I'm tired. I I know. I've been watching for several hours at this point. You guys are champions. Thank you so much for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding HB 5,340, an act concerning renewable power generation. My name is Theresa Eichel. I'm the executive director for the Interreligious Eco Justice Network, and we are a faith based environmental group. We work with religious communities on environmental issues. And in working with hundreds of houses of worship across the state, I can attest that solar is a very high priority. I'm currently talking to houses of worship in Coventry, Suffield, Willimantic, Middletown, and Danielson, who are all in various stages of solar adoption and I receive calls and emails every week from religious communities that are interested. And religious communities in Connecticut install solar because it's a clean, affordable source of energy. It lowers their operating costs. It allows them to serve more people in need, and it reduces their greenhouse gas and pollution emissions. In addition, houses of worship more and more are being asked to serve as warming and cooling centers in times of extreme weather, and solar helps them do that. But even more than all the practical reasons, choosing clean energy helps religious communities live in concert with the with the planet, which the creator loves. So we support fifty three forty because it aligns with the goals of religious communities to help people who are struggling the most. Religious communities have been very involved in helping people access energy efficiency and barrier remediation programs, and the next step is helping people access solar. We're very supportive of the, program for Deep to install more residential solar and environmental justice communities. And I'd also like to note that IREGN has worked with Efficiency For All on their programs in New Haven and Hartford, and the POPPilot program sounds really terrific. We support plug in solar, which would be a potential solution for people who can't put solar on their roofs, including renters, people with shaded roofs, apartment dwellers, while also increasing clean energy on Connecticut's grid. We I would love I I want to sort of, highlight the people that spoke before me, especially Mark and, Eric from Earthlight Technologies. I listened with a lot of interest. Their recommendations are very sound. I really speak from the support and interest from religious communities, but I definitely cede the expertise to people really in the field. I also thought Mike Trahan gave great testimony. I do worry that reducing compensation for solar and, tying it to battery storage will reduce adoption. Usually, what I see is people getting their solar and then doing battery storage. And, we're very interested in seeing interconnection and permitting times decreased. Anything that will speed the process along is a good thing. So thank you so much. Let there be light.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: But I I can't even follow that up. That that that is such a great way to, tell you, as always, thank you for your testimony and for your commitment to, you know, to serve, low income and environmental justice communities and, be true to your your mission and and values. We very much appreciate your, stalwart support of many of the initiatives we're we're trying to bring forward. Let there be light. And on that note, without any other questions or comments, we'll thank you and move on to Christine Feeley followed by Charles Rothenberger. Christine.

[Christine Feeley (Member of the public)]: Yes. Good evening. Chairman Neal, Glenn and Steinberg and ranking members, Fazio and Laura, and members of the energy and technologies committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 5340. I see I I think it will accomplish a number of important goals. Certainly, establishing a successor program to the residential renewable energy solutions program is one. I'm concerned though that the proposed, SCAF successor will exclude customers who are unable to install clean energy projects at their home or business, which is currently a category of eligible customers for the shared clean energy facility program. Current category of customers should not be excluded. Access to clean energy should be expanded constantly, not shrunk, so the Connecticut can achieve its goals specified in an executive order and found in various places. I will say that realizing plug in or balcony solar systems is a big step in the right direction. I'm very excited about it. It will empower many types of residents to participate in clean energy. It's a and it's a democratic form of energy. In fact, it has been described by one New Hampshire legislation sponsored this way, quote, it fits the notion of freedom. If you could do this, why shouldn't you be able to? End quote. As specified in similar legislation being proposed in quite a few states, including those in the Northeast, The legislation takes into account the necessary safety issues. So that I heard some comments about that. That is you know, those things are I I think are all included in the in the develop in the legislation and will be included in as it gets developed. I'm also very much in favor of the plans for the development of agrivoltaics. More and more states have started developing agrivoltaics in the last five years. It's it's become a very important way to start stabilize farm income, while increasing the clean energy supply in all sorts of states, places that maybe you wouldn't expect it and places that you would. And with the frequent flooding and drought that we've seen in the last five years and can expect to continue, that's a very important consideration, the the stabilizing of farm income. So I urge you to pass this legislation. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you. It's always nice to have testimony, which is just broad scale support of, what we're trying to do. We we do appreciate that, and, I share your desire to make some of these programs available to as many people as possible. So we will definitely take your encouragement as encouragement. And without any other questions or comments, you can see I'm starting to lose my grip here. In any case, Charles Rothenberger followed by Ruthie DeWitt.

[Charles Rothenberger (Director of Government Relations, Save the Sound)]: Good evening, honorable members of the Energy and Technology Committee. My name is Charles Rothenberger. I'm the Director of Government Relations for Save the Sound. And as many others have before me, I'm here to testify in, broad support of HB number 5,340, and that concerning renewable energy generation. While, the bill is largely consistent with the recommendations made by PURA with respect to the successor solar programs. Importantly, including limiting eligible projects to zero emissions technologies. The bill is generally less prescriptive, than the myriad of recommendations made by PURA and does not necessarily require the adoption of certain program design elements. Rather, the bill provides factors for consideration and provides PURA with the discretion to adopt particular design elements as part of the program docket, and we think that's appropriate. The bill also directs PURA to consider a wide range of factors in setting the compensation rates for the residential and commercial programs. These factors will ensure that the benefits as well as the cost of the programs are appropriately evaluated to ensure value to rate payers and the grid. We do have three, recommendations for, tweaks to the bill. Number one, as several folks testified, before me, we really need to ensure that the timeline for the successor programs align with the expiration of the existing programs to avoid those service delivery gaps. Number two, I would recommend that we allow solar capacity to match existing site load for the residential and commercial programs plus anticipated future load. That's the way the RRES and NRES programs are currently designed. It does not seem to have created any problem. And this will allow, this solar installations to be sized to accommodate anticipated extra load at those sites, whether they're going to purchase some electric vehicle, or adopt a heat pump, etcetera. And finally, we would oppose limiting eligibility for the SCUF program to low income customers. Traditionally, the SCUF program was really designed to expand the benefits of solar power to homeowners and businesses that weren't allowed to participate in the ARRES program for whatever reason, maybe their roof wasn't aligned correctly, they were renters, etcetera. So, broader participation in that program is recommended. We also, very much support section six of the bill which directs DEEP to develop and implement a program to support the development of solar agrivoltaics. We appreciate the committee's recognition of the benefits that solar agrivoltaics can play and supporting the state's clean energy goals while helping to preserve agricultural land in the state. Unlike other competing uses for agricultural land, such as commercial or residential development options which eliminate farmland forever, agrivoltaics present a win win opportunity. Farmers get revenue from leasing a portion of their land, and the solar installation can be located with compatible existing or future agricultural uses. And I heard the bell. So with that, I will conclude. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Charles. Know, I certainly take your point with reference to the successor programs. Transitions are always challenging. And in fact, we saw that with the origination of these tariff programs that, you know, we had some projects, sort of stuck in the transition and the like. You know, we do the best we can to, communicate to potential developers and projects, our intention for change. That's all the more reason for us to have be having this conversation now rather than winning to 2028, where any change would be, down on the fly and would create issues for those trying to base their business on what the future is gonna look like. So, we very much appreciate your input to make sure that even if this is more of an evolution than a revolution in terms of successor programs, We do everything within our power to make it as seamless as possible for all those who might participate. So thanks for that pointing that out. Agree with you on the other points as well, and, we look forward to your participation going forward as we try to hammer this out. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, you know the drill Charles. Alright. End of the day, and, we're moving along fast.

[Charles Rothenberger (Director of Government Relations, Save the Sound)]: Thank you for your consideration.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Ruthie DeWitt followed by Andy Bauer.

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: Hello. Chairman Needleman and Steinberg, ranking members and distinguished members of the Energy and Technology Committee, thank you for your time. My name is Ruthie DeWitt and I am the Northeast Director for the Solar Energy Industries Association. We are the National Trade Association for Solar and Storage. We were founded in 1974 and we have over 1,200 member companies with about 145 here in Connecticut. We represent all types of aspects of the industry contractors manufacturers lenders and we really appreciate the opportunity to comment on House Bill 5,340. Some of the same points as other folks today, so I just wanna reiterate the importance of that. We support a lot of the provisions in this bill, especially where it aligns with PURA's successor program study. But there are a few points I want to make in terms of how we think it could be improved. First of all as we've heard today program timing is critical. As currently drafted the bill would have a gap and we encourage aligning the statutory timeline so that the program begins on 01/01/2028 and also ensure that PURA has the authority to extend the existing programs if necessary and to until the new programs are operational. We also encourage the legislature to retain key choice customer choice provisions including maintaining both the netting and buy all tariff options for the non residential customers in section two of this bill. This this option ensures that you know Connecticut businesses schools and municipalities can ensure can select the compensation structure that works best for them. Currently around 84% of folks in that program do choose the BUILD option. So we think that's important to maintain that. Third I want to encourage you to ensure that the SCAF program in section three remains broadly accessible. While we do believe that prioritizing low income households is extremely important, limiting participation to only those customers could unintentionally constrain program growth and reduce opportunities for broader participation. And finally, I want to encourage the committee to ensure that the design of the ARRES successor program reflects the recommendations in PURA's report regarding the removal of the non bypassable charge. In their report, they detail that the charge would no longer serve the policy purpose it was intended to address, so removing it would simplify the program structure and better align residential solar compensation with the new tariff structure. As we know, solar and storage are no longer emerging technologies. They are core infrastructure for our modern, reliable, and effective energy system. And we believe that with some of these adjustments, we can have a very successful successor program here. We also will be submitting written testimony that details a lot more of our thoughts on this bill. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony and your patience. Normally, I would say going so late in the day is a disadvantage, but given your background, having heard everybody else's testimony to this point, has perhaps given you a little bit more insight, particularly on on one topic that we've talked about on and off, which is the pairing of solar and storage. Where do you see the opportunities in the state of Connecticut? What else should we be doing?

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: Yeah. Great question. I believe that storage really has the ability to align with a lot of what the the what we're trying to do here today which is related to reliability and affordability when we can add storage to existing or to new solar systems. It really ensures that that that duck curve that we've been hearing about we can continue to reduce that peak demand past the hours of when the sun is out. So that's one way. And in terms of affordability, it allows homeowners, if it's a residential system, to be able to control their electrons a lot more and have better compensation mechanisms. I do think in general that storage allows for the extension of solar's effectiveness on our grid. And so I think those are some of the places that we can see it being most effective.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. Would you say that any other states do a particularly good job in in pairing the two and, you know, in terms of both small and large scale projects?

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: Yeah. I think, there's, Massachusetts has some good programs, there with their connected solutions. I think that, there's a lot that's being developed, but that's definitely a good place to start.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We often look to Massachusetts after they've done beta testing to see if we wanted to adopt them. Representative Mushinsky.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Yeah. I wanted to ask about the idea they're using in Texas and Utah where they put a four hour battery in the house and then they plug in solar and it charges the battery while they're at work, they come back, it discharges, and lights up the house, and runs all the appliances and all that. Do you see that as

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: a future for Connecticut? Yeah. I think that, I think at any solar and storage system paired well can help. As I was saying earlier, those homeowners really have more control over the reliability in the later hours of the day. I am not as well versed on the plug in solar, so I'm happy to get back to you on further detail there.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Is that representative? Thank you. One last question for you. I think virtually every state is, I was going to use the word reeling, but let's use the word reacting to the changes of incentives at the federal level for, for solar. Have you observed any States, adjusting to the lack of federal incentives in order to support their local industries?

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: Yeah. I mean, I think that's the question that every state is dealing with right now, and we are definitely as an industry, encouraging and curious of how states will step up to fill the gap that has unfortunately come from the shift in changes at the federal level. I wouldn't say I particularly have a state at the moment but I would encourage the state of Connecticut to continue to be a leader within that and realize that those changes at the federal are really having a large impact on our industry and we want to be here today and tomorrow and ten years from now and the work that's being done in the successor program and in this bill are really important to make sure that we can continue that work.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that. Any other comments or questions? If not, thank you for hanging in. Really appreciate your perspective.

[Ruthie DeWitt (Northeast Director, SEIA)]: Thank you for your time.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Moving along. Homestretch people. Andy Bauer followed by Robert Keane.

[Andy Bauer (Chair, Portland Clean Energy Task Force)]: Good evening, chairs Needleman and Steinberg. Ranking members Fazio and Mara. Members of ENT. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of h b five three four zero. I chair the Portland Clean Energy Task Force, and I speak today as a very satisfied solar since 2006 homeowner with house batteries installed in 2025. I was so pleased with solar and storage. I produced a home video. There's a link to that in my comments for your viewing pleasure. I wanna take Terry Eichel's point about solar first then storage. You can't always do this at the same time. So a gap in between. Mine was nineteen years. Alright. Moving on. My home is all electric. Our total annual energy bill is around a thousand dollars for everything. Heating, cooling, everything. All appliances plus one electric vehicle. It's clearly working for me and I'd love to see this repeated elsewhere, which is why I'm very pleased with section seven. I want to pick up on Mark Scully's comments. When we look at our electric bill, we need to look past line items and cost and see people who are being helped. Sections section seven takes the success of an energy efficiency and building envelope program completed last year in New Haven. There's a link to an article also in my written comments and adds solar and storage and is looking to replicate it for low income rate payers. Because of the current vibe in the media concerning state funding, I'll mention that the contractors are fully vetted and the program has been successfully audited. I believe efficiency for all, Kaylee Mitchell earlier spoke to these points. Behind the meter solar helps all rate payers. If we're talking about cost, below in my testimony is a helpful chart from the Acadia Center, which in my opinion is a must read to understand why rooftop solar pays pays off 8,200,000.0 on the hottest day last year. ISO New England has an article also supporting that. Both links in my written comments. I'm gonna forgo reading the rest of my comments. You've heard a lot of them from others. But I'd like to close with a heartfelt thank you to representative Mashinsky and your dearly departed colleague and my mentor, Joel Gordis. You too are as right on climate issues in 1990 as you are now. Representative Steinberg, thank you for your vision, practicality, and courtesy over the many years. Thank you. Please take it as a compliment to your efforts that with our solar and storage, our house has a 100% compliance rate for dispatching stored energy to the grid when asked. Additionally, we have not missed a single month of EV managed charging. Because of folks like you, we are dedicated to making our home one part of a grid solution. Thank you. I am happy to try to address any questions.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Well, first of all, thank you for being such a good example for for all of us. If everybody did what you were doing, we wouldn't be talking about a lot of the problems we have today. Secondly, mentioning Joel Gordis, former legislator, He was kind of a mentor to me on a lot of different things. And not merely his knowledge and passion, but his sense of perspective and humor, I I found really special. Agreed. Since you're bringing up really special, I concur with your remarks with regard to representative Mushinsky, who is simply not replaceable. But we'll talk more about that before session is over. But most importantly, thank you for your testimony, particularly adding links that will help educate us. I hope we'll all have a chance to take a look at those. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, thanks for hanging in. Always appreciate I'm I'm on the c ten email list. I always appreciate your your comments.

[Andy Bauer (Chair, Portland Clean Energy Task Force)]: My pleasure. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Next up is Robert Keane followed by Grace O'Grady.

[Robert Keane (Member of the public)]: Yes. Thank you. My voice coming through okay?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: You're doing great. Please continue.

[Robert Keane (Member of the public)]: Okay. Thank thank you. I'm here on the affordability kit. God, I guess that was last year's agenda. I'm not in favor of the solar programs, the way they're being done. Utility scale can be done about a fourth the cost. I agree with Carrie Prescott from United Illuminating who said that we're we're spending about $8,000,000,000 on the current programs. I think the buy all program illustrates the high cost. You're buying all residential solar power at 32¢ a kilowatt hour, and you're selling it into the grid at for 3¢. The difference, 29¢, goes to the public benefits charge. In addition, there's no value to this to create to creating a standard offer. The procurement committee is just gonna sell it in the grid because they can't deal with a highly variable power generation source. They need a firm supply in order to stack up these contracts and to make a standard offer supply for us. The next item is heat pumps. A 4% increase in load due to heat pumps is gonna increase our cost about 50%, which is a 12 times multiplication factor. The heat pump accelerator is doing just about that, and it's gonna be a disaster because we're misleading people on costs. The the cost for the past year, I can't hold this up. Basically, they were adding loads the most expensive times of the year, and it is gonna and we're not being honest to people about what it costs. We're giving them average prices, which are subsidizing the cost of the heat pumps. And finally, I'd like to talk about the nuclear, about dispatch mode generation. They did a study for the nuclear, and one megawatt of nuclear replaces eight megawatts of wind, solar, and storage, although gas would be cheaper. I'm not necessarily selling on nuclear because I I agree they're at high risk right now, but it gives an indication of how much wind, solar, and storage is required to replace a one megawatt of dispatchable generation. And that's the the end of my comments, I guess, right now. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, mister Keane, for taking the time to share with us your points of view. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, thank you for hanging in with us today. We'll definitely take your, comments under consideration. Next up is Grace O'Grady followed by Nathan Frolling. Is Grace with us? We all need grace. If not, we'll move on to Nathan. Are you with us, Nathan?

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: I am. It's great to be here, and I'm moved by the testimonials that I just heard from Andy. For you, representative Steinberg, for representative Mashinsky, and for my old friend, Joel Gordis, that was touches my heart. I also my comments will probably not be stunning or different from what you've already heard on fifty three forty.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Come on. Give us something stunning. We we just

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: Well, I'm I'm so excited to see that there's so much testimony in 50 three forty that's positive. So if you'll indulge me, I'll take my two minute, two and a half minutes to put on the record our own perspective on this bill. So here we go. Thank you to, of course, Senator Needleman and you, Representative Steinberg, Senator Fazio and Representative Mara that I don't think are here right now. But to all the members of B and T for this opportunity to add my voice and our organizational support. The Nature Conservancy support for 5340 as a renewable solar energy has an important role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and well structured residential, non residential and community solar programs can expand consumer access to and support of solar energy while also reducing cost for ratepayers. And I really appreciated the comments today about the importance of benefits, not just costs. And we're toying with the cost is gonna take us to actually get some of those benefit numbers. And I'm hoping we could add that to the study that I mentioned last week in terms of some of the information we're hoping to bring to you and to the legislature this session still before we're done. Anyway, HP fifty three forty outlines a holistic approach to behind the meter solar deployment. It presents a strategy that considers energy generation, demand management, grid integration and financial incentives. And this approach aims to maximize solar benefits while minimizing the risks associated with its deployment. We support sections one through three, which would have PURA develop successor programs for the ARES, NRES, and SCF programs that will consider a comprehensive system of benefits, cost, tariffs, and state goals. As these programs have matured, there is now both benefit and the need to update them to maximize the potential behind the meter energy. We support section two and four that would require a study of consumer protection for solar system leasing and sales. We support Section five regarding definition and use of plug ins. We've heard a lot about that today. These systems are particularly beneficial for renters and those with limited roofs or living in apartments and so forth as we've heard, and they do not require permanent installation or permits. Plug in solar systems are not only cost a cost effective solution that can lower energy bills, but they can reduce reliance on the grid as well. The technology has been widely adopted. I feel like I'm just saying all the things you've heard already, so bear with me. Just getting it on the record. Technology has been widely adopted in Europe with over a million balcony solar systems registered in Germany alone. So we believe this bill of 50 feet 40 can help facilitate the deployment of plug in solar here in Connecticut. We know there's other questions about AMI and so forth, but getting this thing going is really exciting. We support language in Section six regarding the implementation of agrivoltaics. TNC Nature Conservancy has advocated for agrivoltaics in comments regarding the comprehensive energy strategy, the steps process and prior solar legislation. So we're all for that. We're committed to both land conservation and renewable energy. Surprisingly, not really So with appropriate planning, we can support solar while avoiding significant ecosystem impacts. Lastly, we very much support section seven regarding a pilot program for solar systems in environmental justice communities. And so I'll leave it there. That's what we wanted to say. Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Nathan. We appreciate it. You should never have to apologize for reiterating points. We're a little slow on the uptake, so we need we need repetition. So I very much appreciate that. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for your testimony. Just wanna let you know that I am still here.

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: You glad you're here. I didn't see you.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (Ranking Member, House)]: The sun is dwindling and therefore my energy is as well, but I am here and listening. Thank you.

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: The record shows that representative Mara is present.

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: The the yeah.

[Jeff Gross (DEEP staff)]: It's a little hard

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: to hear it. And, Wyeth, thank you again for mentioning this this putative study that you keep referring to. You've really tempted us, and we can't wait to see what the results will be. So sooner the the better as far as I'm concerned. But thank you again for your testimony and for your diligence in looking out for our interests. If there are no further questions, we will move on to Jeffrey Gross

[Nathan Frohling (The Nature Conservancy, CT)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: By Samantha Dynowsky.

[Mike Delagala (Founder & CEO, Solar Collective Agrivoltaics)]: Is

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Jeffrey here?

[Jeff Gross (DEEP staff)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Hey. Jeff Gross here. Deeper her. Thanks thanks to the committee speaking on my behalf today. I'd like to thank committee for the opportunity to address the solar bill on solar day twenty twenty six. This is wonderful. I've learned a lot today from listening, and I think that's more important than I'm going to say. But I do support now the ag friendly, ag first agrivoltaics. I do support the shared solar program. I it's written as LMI first. I think that's okay, but there's opportunity to make it more general later on. And after some discussion, I support the plug in approach. Chris Phelps never sent me wrong, and I can actually tell you how to tell if you have more than a couple of those plugged in at one time. I'll tell you that technology later if it comes up. But the under my main concern for the future, 2028 is as before, you know, we we're recognizing that electricity is a time boundary source, and that's why we have, you know, the peak periods, why we have batteries, why we have peakers. Peakers are problematic. The AMI meters are gonna be great, need that. And dynamic rates, that's probably gonna happen too. But, you know, I'm a I'm a five year veteran of the Eversource time of use rate tariff. It's hard. It's hard if you don't have a battery. Right? You need to, like, force your family to behave. But if you do have a battery and you're signed up for or you gotta make sure you're getting reimbursed on anything you do export, by the way. That's not automatic. And I think they fixed that in the ESS program since I was there. But if that's fixed, then that's a perfectly valid way to make your step into the next world, and time of use would be painless, pretty painless. And solar would be nice. You know, that's nice to add on if you do it immediately. But there's a you know, there's some complications. There's a conflict between arbitrage and time of use active dispatching, for example. So I do think for the general public, I think the aggregators, like Agleap and so forth, will be really important. Right? This is just too complicated to do by yourself or without, you know, the AI and all your tools. So I think it'll be great once we get if we can plan and do pilots and get over the hump on it, I think it'd be great. And I can't wait to, you know, enjoy it when it comes. And I do hope that we provide a pathway for the grandfathered program people to migrate to the new world because, as I say, it's gonna be, you know, better than ever. Thank

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: you. You make us sound like a bunch of pilgrims heading to the new world. But, you know, given with the condition of this world, it sounds kind of attractive. So thank you for your input and your passion for these projects and for your willingness to put your money where your mouth is and actually follow through on these things. Again, if everybody did that, we'd have a lot fewer problems to talk about right now. Any questions or comments? If not, thanks for hanging in. Always good to see you. Sam, come on up and followed by Kate Donnelly. Welcome.

[Samantha Dynowski (State Director, Sierra Club Connecticut)]: Thank you so much. Chairs, Niedel and Steinberg and ranking members, Fazio and Mara and members of the committee. I too am fading. Thank you though for the opportunity to testify of submit and written, written testimony and so much has been said. So, I'm just going to hit a couple of highlights, on each of the bills that we, we submitted testimony on. And my name is Sam Donowsky on behalf of the Sierra Club and our 30,000 members. I'm very happy to be here with you today. We, are in strong support of House Bill 5,340, the solar bill. Wanna, highlight that, particularly sections one, two, and three, the reauthorization of the solar programs, are really important to get that right as we've heard today, so that we have continuity for consumers and developers. When we think about solar, our, a top priority for us is to make sure that we are, meeting our state's, climate and clean energy goals. And so the details are really important. We've heard a lot about it today. But I think it's really necessary as we go through this session to think carefully about, the measures that will end up in the final bill and making sure that they don't, impede solar, but help to grow it here in our state. Really big supporters of the plug in solar provision in the bill and excited to see the development of that. So thank you for having that in there and starting that conversation as well as the, environmental justice community pilot program. We are really looking forward to seeing how that develops and think that can be an important program. On House Bill five three three nine, we heard from a number of people that we align our comments with, which is that, streamlining solar permitting is really important. And as we think we can, we should do it as quickly as possible. And that we shouldn't wait on a study. And last week, we testified on House Bill 5,036 about ways to, to streamline the solar permitting and point to the DOE solar app plus program that many people have mentioned and hope that, that, that will be considered. And then, finally, on House Bill five three three seven, we really, I really struggled with this one and how to approach it. Because this was the district heating system bill which we fully agree with reducing the use of frat gas, methane gas consumption. But we think since the program was first developed in 2015, things have really changed both our laws and the technology, that's out there. So, as you consider this bill, what we are recommending is making sure that that, that if you move forward with it that, provisions we put in place to both align with our, our clean energy goals, which are the hundred percent zero carbon by 2040. And that, thermal energy networks and technology that's emerging, as an alternative, you know, as the new the next district heating system that they would be allowed to, participate in this as well. And thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you, Sam, for your testimony. Let's just address that last thing you you were talking about, which is a good point. And we see this across the entire energy landscape is that technology is a game changer. Were there anything specific things that you thought that we should be paying close attention to that have dramatically changed the landscape in the past decade as it applies to, thermal or, or other alternative technologies?

[Eunice Mahler (Member of the public)]: Yeah. So the, you

[Samantha Dynowski (State Director, Sierra Club Connecticut)]: know, district heating was largely methane gas, processes, whether it's was energy generation or industrial processes, use with the waste heat used to, supply heating, which very efficient. And what we're moving towards now are thermal energy networks where methane gas is not used, and that it's a zero carbon system and we want to make sure that those kind of systems also get to participate.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for that clarification. Take your point. Other comments or questions? Thank you for hanging in. Nice to see the professionals around here understanding how tough it is for all of us at the end of the day. Kate Donnelly followed by Jesus Salazar.

[Kate Donnelly (Chair, Hampton Green Energy Committee)]: Hi. Distinguished members of the energy and technology committee. My name's Kate Donnelly, and I'm chair of the Hampton green energy committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm strongly in support of HB 5,340 and that concerning renewable power generation. I've been a solar owner for eighteen years and have benefited from clean, renewable energy and feel very proud that my solar system helps provide clean energy to the grid, especially in times of peak use. My town of Hampton currently provides nearly 95% of its electrical use from clean and renewable solar as a result of systems on our school, town hall, private residences, and a solar farm. Connecticut's been on the right track in making renewable energy affordable and clean, and it is essential for us to continue solar programs beyond the 2028 deadline. Sorry, forgot to turn on my camera. Connecticut's been on the right track, but this will not Continuing these programs will not only lower the cost of electricity for rate payers, but also help meet Connecticut's climate goals. And elimination of the caps would help to increase deployment. Plug in solar will give people who do not have the ability for large systems to benefit from solar, especially during power outages, and a pilot program to install solar in EJ communities is essential if we ever to lower the burden from past environmental injustices in those communities. I'd also like to, speak in opposition of number 5,336 and that concerning advanced solar technology. This bill assumes that nuclear technology is a good path forward for Connecticut's energy deeds. A thorough investigation of nuclear will reveal that solar power, wind power, geothermal, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, and more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear energy reactors, award and caution in investing in technology that has not even been made operational in The United States. A few of my major concerns against nuclear are the waste generated remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and needs to be kept contained for one million years. Currently, there are no long term storage solutions for radioactive waste. The development of nuclear energy program increases the likelihood of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations, a frightening prospect in today's society. In addition to the risk posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents. Nuclear power plants, which use enormous amounts of water as coolant, increase the temperatures of local water bodies, which can harm local ecosystems and kill aquatic wildlife. Also with climate change creating increasing water shortages, nuclear power plants are at risk of temporary shutdowns since without water, they cannot be cooled. Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I've submitted testimony on nuclear that, expands some of the points I've made.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. Yes. You're right. That we're all captured by the prospect of nuclear now, particularly since we're all wondering about what demand is gonna look like in the future with the data centers. And, I think we should be prudent about rushing to judgment on what works and what doesn't work. So I just read a study that suggests that they have a process now that can, take, nuclear waste and reduce the impact to a mere thousands of years as opposed to, so, you know, we we we're trending in the right direction. Not that any of us will be here to see whether it works or not. But, except for senator Neilman who promises to be here and report back to the committee. But, not to be too flippant, you know, nuclear is a tested technology, but small modular reactors and some of the other shortcuts that people are suggesting, should give us all pause. I think in the state of Connecticut, we have adopted for better, for worse with some, reservations and all of the above strategy. And until such time as we can clearly project our actual energy needs as well as our ability to generate energy, I think we are served well by looking at all of our options. So thank you for your testimony. We'll take it into consideration. You know, given the the timelines for nuclear, I don't think we're about to rush into anything. So, any other questions or comments? If not, again, thank you for your patience and for your time. We now have Jesus Salazar followed by Will Herschel.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Thank you very much, distinguished members of the committee and representative Steinberg. Oh my god. This is definitely a marathon and not a race. I've been here for a while. But I wanted to speak on House Bill fifty three thirty nine, perhaps the less heard of cousin of fifty three forty, but fifty three thirty nine is a statistics bill. It's asking for a study on residential permitting. I think we've heard talk about, permitting in general and with some distinction, but there's a lot that needs to be said. By Connecticut law, a permit has to be approved within thirty days. That's just how it works. However, the time to actually construct the project spans anywhere from and it's fairly hard to find some physics out online for this. But usually what I sell is around two to five months for a residential solar system. I'm from Texas. We have plenty of sun down there. Solar is slowly gaining traction even with, like, some discontent in the state legislature, but it takes nowhere near two to five months. I can't speak, not being an electrician in Connecticut. I can speak to, like, the different regulations and promoting, but having to do, like, inspections and having, like, several redundant steps, especially when, like, NEC, I know a member mentioned earlier, articles seventy and ninety, but there's also article 690, which specifically covers all photovoltaic systems. Like, that's the national standard, which works well, which allows standardization, which allows for Connecticut with competitive wages to bring in outside electricians. So these are, like, perfectly one to one transferable skills. The photovoltaic system in Connecticut should be no different than one in Texas and one in California. Reducing this is important, but how important is really a question of, well, how long does this actually take, or is this just, like, supply chain issues, etcetera? This is why this bill is important. I think we can talk a lot about doing x, y, or z, but without actually knowing what's happening and getting the statistics to apply legislation, we really should just wait. Even though I after hearing so many good things about house bill, fifty three forty, I think I'd also support it.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Thank you for your your testimony. You know, certainly, we can learn a lot from other states. I'm not sure Texas is always the one I would point towards, though they could probably generate enough electricity via wind and solar and oil and gas to power the entire country. No, wait. They're unable to do that. They're on an islanded grid. They can't even support anybody out of state. But, we will continue to look at all different options. Question of curiosity, you're listed here as a legislative fellow. What kind of role is that? Are you a student at Yale?

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Yeah. So thank you for the question. I am a student at Yale. I'm a first year at Yale, so this is, I think, my second ever, public hearing I've been at. I previously did some legislative advocacy in Texas with my local state rep advocating for water conservation. Water conservation and, like, water resources is like my that's, like, my cherry pie. That is, like, absolutely what I know the most of in Texas. But I I was a former electrician in Texas or an apprentice, so I actually got to install solar panels. And I got to see how they, like, within months of, like, being applied, we're able to give homeowners more control over their, like, energy prices, their energy bills, give them a sense of stability, especially when, like, in Texas with such a large energy base coming from combustibles and fossil fuels, that extreme volatility really hurts homeowners. So I, as a legislative fellow, decided to pick a a bill on the energy and technology committee, and I am here now.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: Alright. We really appreciate it. And, boy, if you're talking about water issues in Texas, those are fighting words. They've had ranch wars over water.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: But we also take your point, and it's interesting to learn that you're an electrician. We've had a number of conversations in the state about how we create a greater pool of electricians who can particularly deal with the new technologies, whether it be, solar panels or storage or heat pumps. So, we need more people with your kind of background, but more importantly, with your kind of passion for the subject. So we really appreciate it. Are there any other questions or comments representative Mashinsky?

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Yeah. Since you worked in Texas, I can ask you my Texas question. I I had a relative that lived in a house there that had a four hour battery, and she charged the solar while she was away at work. And when she came home, the battery discharged for her use in the kitchen and the washing and all the chores that you do when you get home from work. Did you do work on any of

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: that? That's a great question. I worked on a lot of PV systems, but the majority of PV systems in Texas, are not battery based. That is twofold. Largely, it's there's a lot of sun. So just being able to reduce your energy bills is, like, the main draw for PV systems in Texas. And, like, we can talk about, like, PV systems at, like, a larger scale. Texas actually, I think, has almost a majority. I, like, have to check the statistics again. But, actually, like, a majority they're actually, I know this is a fact, actually. The biggest energy producer in Texas is actually wind power. It's not natural gas. It's not oil. It's wind power. And solar is going up there. The issue is as these as, like, wind, as solar are growing and, like, fossil fuels, so it's, like, energy consumption,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: which is

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: why you see such, like, expedited growth of, like, gas plants. The main issue with that, like, maintenance, Right? Even though, like, the absolute amount of, like, solar and renewables is increasing, their proportion isn't, which means the market remains, vulnerable to the volatility of fossil fuels. So for most homeowners, it's just I get to knock off x percentage off my bill. I get to, like, wipe it off if I get some credits. Cool. But it's not really consideration made for batteries, although that's also largely due to a lack of, credits funding from the state legislature. And, of course, without that incentive, very few electricians or companies sprout up to fill that niche.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Okay. So it's not as prevalent as I thought it was, I guess. Just here and there.

[Jason Bowsza (First Selectman, East Windsor)]: It is if if I may interject, it's popular in, like, the strangest segments. So preppers, which I'm sure is, like, a very Texas word. People who, like, live off the grid, you know, don't tread on me. That whole thing, are actually very prosolar and do have, like, large PV systems, PV batteries, because it allows them to be more self sufficient and decentralize, power generation, which I think is generally a good thing if only the Texas state legislature would agree with me. But

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky]: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, mister chair.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: We're glad you're here in Connecticut and can get agreement from the Connecticut state legislature. Any other comments or questions? If not, continue your good work. You know, talk to all your fellow Yalies and get them with the program. We really appreciate it. Seeing no other questions or comments, we will move on to Will Herschel, followed by our last person, which would be Duncan Broach. First of all, Will, are you there? Apparently not. So we will go to mister Connecticut Hydro, Duncan Broach. Duncan, you have the last word tonight.

[Duncan Broach (Chair, Connecticut Small Power Producers Association)]: Very good. Very good. Thank you for slipping me in today. I appreciate that. Chairman of the Connecticut Small Power Produce Association. I've been working for years on coming up with a good program for hydro in Connecticut, which has been lacking a little bit. And after a lot of good work by a lot of people, we did finally pass a bill called PA23-eight, which was a hydro study done by a task force. And it was a very well done study that involved more than a hundred hours of, work by many parties. And then the result of that study, it had some proposals in there, some recommendations on how to provide hydro with some needed rates for the electricity. So then PA 24 dash 38 was passed, which included a hydro program to be directed by DEEP. So that would be a procurement. However, due to a heavy workload, DEEP missed the deadline for that, which expired on 12/31/2025. So, unfortunately, everything, went for naught. However, in talking with people at DEP, they've indicated to me that, you know, why don't we, just try to get that amended to extend it, by one year? So that's why I'm trying to hear, today to do a, addition to this r b fifty three forty. The addition would be to, just simply modify, PA twenty four thirty eight, amend PA twenty four thirty eight, and extend that date from 12/31/2025 to 12/31/2026. It will allow DEP to come out with a hydro procurement and allow hydro projects to, put in their bids for that that RFP and get, better rates for their energy. Because many projects right now are having a hard time because all they can get is the ISO, wholesale rate and, you know, some projects are shutting down as a result. So, it's a small ask, but I'm I know it's a bit awkward. I'm coming in a bit late here, but I'm hoping that it's something that is noncontroversial, has support, and and we can do it so that all the work that we've come and done to date goes to good

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: use. Duncan, thank you, first of all, for your commitment to hydro here in the state of Connecticut and sustaining the the the existing projects that are, viable. And, yeah, it's a little late in the game, but as asks go, this is pretty straightforward and modest. We've now had a hearing on it. We've taken testimony. One could argue that we're in a position to take action. And it is something that we will, discuss and consider, particularly if you have confidence that, if we extend it, DEEP will follow through with the procurement.

[Duncan Broach (Chair, Connecticut Small Power Producers Association)]: Very good. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (House Chair, Energy & Technology Committee)]: And, that's a good way to end. On a positive note, something maybe we can actually accomplish. I wanna thank everybody who's participated in today's hearing and particularly my colleagues here on the committee. Another good effort. I think it'll lead to some good legislation. We have another public hearing a week from today where we'll be dealing with assorted other bills. We will see you then. This meeting is adjourned.