Witness urges clear legislative language to extend energy-efficiency pilot, warns PUC review could delay programs

A witness testifying to the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 27 urged lawmakers to make legislative authorization for a pilot program explicit so utilities can begin new customer programs without being delayed by procedural review at the Public Utility Commission.

Darren Springer, introduced to the committee as a guest, said the pilot authority the committee is considering is distinct from an uncontested PUC docket that addresses coordination across utilities. “This 10 94 is not a contested case,” he said, arguing the docket was not the forum to secure the statutory change the utility needs and that the legislature is the correct venue for that decision.

Springer described two paths the committee could take: a model that leaves the PUC with authority to review and approve participation, and a no‑review model where entities participate and the PUC later reviews the proposals for consistency with legislative boundaries. He asked lawmakers to draft language that makes clear entities are allowed to participate and that the PUC’s role be limited to reviewing proposals for consistency rather than determining participation itself.

On funding, Springer said the current pilot includes only $150,000 dedicated to weatherization for the 2024–26 period but that the bill’s proposed 2027–29 projection is roughly $1.7 million. Under the draft language he described, a 60% allocation to thermal efficiency would put just over $1 million toward weatherization-related activity and roughly 60% of that—about $600,000—would be directed to income‑qualified customers. “This represents a dramatic increase in the weatherization,” Springer said.

Springer said his concern is that raising the weatherization requirement above that level (for example, toward 75%) would crowd out funds for other pilot priorities such as geothermal testing, commercial custom programs and EV charging infrastructure.

Committee members pressed for precise bill language that preserves the committee’s policy intent; several agreed to circulate proposed edits to legislative counsel. The committee asked the witness to provide written follow-up materials to clarify the proposals and the demand-resource-plan filing he referenced.

Next steps: committee staff will circulate a revised draft and the witness agreed to submit written materials. No formal floor vote on the committee bill was recorded during the hearing.