VERMONT PUBLIC POWER
SUPPLY AUTHORITY
5195 Waterbury-Stowe Road  P.O. Box 298  Waterbury Ctr., VT 05677-0298
(802) 244-7678
Fax (802) 244-6889
www.vppsa.com
July 9, 2009
Susan M. Hudson, Clerk
Vermont Public Service Board
112 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2701
re: docket 7523
Implementation of Standard Offer Prices for
Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development
(“SPEED”) Resources
and
docket No. 7533
Establishment of Price for Standard Offer under the
Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development
(“SPEED”) program
Dear Mrs. Hudson:
In accordance with the schedule established at the June 19, 2009 prehearing conference and the
Board’s memorandum of June 26, 2009, the Group of Municipal Electric Utilities (“GMEU”)*
submits these comments.
Issues warranting preliminary determination
A number of parties, including the GMEU, have suggested the wisdom of creating working groups
to address the various issues arising from implementation of the Vermont Energy Act of 2009 (“the
Act”). The diversity and significance of the comments raised by the parties in their July 2nd filings
underscores the wisdom of this approach. There are, however, certain core fundamental legal and/or
factual issues that the GMEU submits should be resolved by the Board in order to give working
groups reasonable guidance and parameters surrounding their efforts. These issues include the
following:
1. Technology-based allocations within the queue. Several parties have suggested that specific
allocations by technology be made within the queue, so that a certain amount is reserved for wind,
solar and the other technologies falling within the purview of the Act. As noted in the prior comments
of the GMEU, an argument can be made that the legislature may not have intended such an allocation,
given the absence of language suggesting it and the specificity embodied in many other components
– VPPSA –
 Page 2
July 27, 2016
of the Act. Work surrounding the structure of the queue and the form and issuance of standard
contracts will lack needed focus if this core issue is not resolved.
2. Eligibility of projects under development. Parties have taken diverse views as to how projects
“in the pipeline” should be treated, suggesting eligibility dates that range from 2005 through the fall of
this year. Absent prompt resolution of this question, it seems likely that there will be disputesespecially between developers-the moment that the queue begins to be filled.
3.
Relationship between net metering and the Act. GMEU agrees with other comments
suggesting that net metering is better suited to very small projects than is the standard offer. To avoid
early disputes on this issue and to give guidance to prospective working groups, the Board will need to
resolve the question of whether the developer of a net metering-eligible project has a right to elect the
standard offer provisions of the Act.
4. Contract length determination. The July 2nd comments reflect differing views on whether the
length of standard offer contracts is determined by the board or is a choice conferred on developers by
the Act. In addition to impacting the rates, options concerning contract length are likely to be relevant
to non-price terms of standard offer contracts as well, and resolution of this issue at an early stage is
essential.
While there may be other issues that would be appropriate subjects for early determination, the
GMEU has endeavored to keep this list as short as possible given the time constraints and heavy
workload faced by the Board and the parties, and in the belief that working groups can and should
carry the brunt of the load in the near future. The four issues noted above have overarching
significance, however, in that they (a) are relevant to standard offer contracts both now and in the
future; (b) are issues that need to be resolved whatever the outcome of the Board’s September, 2009
and January, 2010 rate setting exercises; (c) are vital to establishing the rights and expectations of
developers relative to one another as well as relative to utilities and ratepayers; and (d) involve a
discerning of legislative intent that, whether or not consistent with the wishes and beliefs of parties on
one or more of these issues, establishes the ground rules under which all involved in these dockets
must work.
GMEU position on key issues
GMEU expects that its positions on various issues in this docket will continue to evolve, in a spirit
of receptiveness to the ideas and insights of the many parties involved. At this time, GMEU offers the
following thoughts with respect to some of the key issues that have evolved.
1.
Granularity of rates. GMEU agrees with the Department of Public Service that the earliest
rate-related exercises – particularly the September one – should not strive to achieve too much
granularity given the short time frames for analysis and the lack of opportunity to rigorously test the
evidence on which the Board’s September conclusions will be based. While increased granularity
may be rational and appropriate as suggested in the Northern Power Systems filing, efforts on that
score should not be artificially condensed into a few weeks.
 Page 3
July 27, 2016
2.
Auction issues. GMEU agrees with Renewable Energy Vermont that an auction process
should not be used in the early rounds. There is very little time to assemble a thorough and
appropriately publicized auction within the next several months. Full consideration of an auction
mechanism is, however, appropriate in future rate setting proceeding under the Act.
3.
Wheeling. As correctly acknowledged in the comments of Renewable Energy Development,
LLC, the use of the Rule 4.100 composite system predates FERC Order 888 and related subsequent
developments. This issue must be fully explored and resolved, as it has been raised in other contexts
(see docket 5279) and remains unclear.
4.
Interconnection studies. GMEU agrees with the comments of other parties suggesting that
interconnection study costs should be borne by the developer consistent with Board Rule 5.100.
5.
Department of Public Service comment re: utility creditworthiness. The GMEU strongly
disagrees that there is a need by developers for assurances “that utilities remain creditworthy.” The
composite nature of the allocation process under the Act provides sufficient security, and any costs
associated with the provisions of such assurances would adversely impact ratepayers without
corresponding benefit.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
David John Mullett
cc: service list
* Barton Village, Inc. Electric Department, Village of Enosburg Falls Water & Light
Department, Town of Hardwick Electric Department, Village of Hyde Park, Inc. Electric
Department, Village of Jacksonville Electric Company, Village of Johnson, Inc. Water & Light
Department, Village of Ludlow Electric Light Department, Village of Lyndonville Electric
Department, Village of Morrisville Water & Light Department; Northfield Electric
Department, Village of Orleans, Inc. Electric Department, Town of Readsboro Electric Light
Department, Swanton Village, Inc. Electric Department
 Page 4
July 27, 2016