Innovation advisory council and Green Bank urge clearer scaling rules and longer pilots for IES

The Innovation Advisory Council and Connecticut Green Bank told PURA on May 6 that although the IES program has produced valuable learnings, the authority should sharpen rules for evaluating which pilots should be scaled.

Julia Domaine, co‑chair of the IAC, said inconsistent application of cost‑effectiveness and readiness‑to‑scale criteria risks undervaluing projects whose pilot costs include one‑time integration or development expenses. “Cost effectiveness at the pilot level is a critical factor, but it is considered holistically with other metrics rather than in a vacuum,” Domaine said.

Sarah Harari, director of innovation at the Connecticut Green Bank, recommended three specific program modifications to be considered in a program‑review docket: (1) revise the IES benefit‑cost methodology to distinguish one‑time pilot deployment costs from projected costs at scale; (2) extend pilot timelines to a minimum of 24 months to capture at least one full winter and summer season; and (3) require the electric distribution companies (EDCs) to propose at least one pathway for projects to advance in future IES cycles or related proceedings.

The IAC and Green Bank argued these steps would help ensure pilot investments produce durable benefits for Connecticut ratepayers and prevent ‘‘pilot purgatory’’ where promising technologies languish without clear routes to scale. They also recommended clearer direction for integrating pilot learnings into utility filings, rate cases and integrated distribution planning.