Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

(Cite as: 30 V.S.A. § 8002)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: In re Petition of Portland Street Solar LLC, 2021 VT 67 (Vt. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Petition of Portland Street Solar LLC, 2021 VT 67 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 7× “1 Interpreting the definition of “plant” set forth in 30 V.S.A. § 8002(18), the Commission determined that the proposed Portland Street project would be part of a single plant along with the already-approved adjacent Golden 1 Apart from an exception not relevant here, Vermont…”
In re Petition of Stowe Cady Hill Solar, LLC, 182 A.3d 53 (Vt. 2018). “30 V.S.A. § 8002(16). The energy produced by the net-metered system is fed into the existing distribution network and serves to offset the cost of the electricity used by the owner of the net-metered system.”
In re Programmatic Changes to the Stand.-Offer Prog., 2014 VT 29 (Vt. 2014). “” 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). The projects will not share common roads, control facilities, or connections to the electric grid.”
In Re Petition of Otter Creek Solar LLC, 2025 VT 65 (Vt. 2025). · cites it 9× “After briefing, the hearing officer issued a proposed decision, recommending that the Commission deny the CPG for Warner Solar because it formed a “single plant” with Battle Creek pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 8002(18). The Department of Public Service and Otter Creek filed comments…”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). · cites it 5× “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). · cites it 5× “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
In re Investigation Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §§ 30 & 209 into whether the Initiated Site Preparation at Apple Hill in Bennington, Vermont (Allco Renewable Energy Ltd., Appellant), 2021 VT 92 (Vt. 2021). “0-MW “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14)). In September 2021, we reversed the PUC’s denial of a CPG for the Apple Hill facility and remanded for additional proceedings.”
In Re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC, 2026 VT 8 (Vt. 2026). · cites it 2× “10 constituted a single plant under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14) (2012). In re Chelsea Solar LLC, 2021 VT 27 , ¶ 2, 214 Vt.”
Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Roisman (D. Vt. 2020). “]” 30 V.S.A. § 8002(15) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
In Re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC (Vt. 2026). “Where a standard-offer contract is awarded, the proposed solar facility must achieve “commissioning”—in other words, be “put into operation”—within two years, unless the contract recipient requests and receives an extension of the standard-offer commissioning deadline.”
In re Programmatic Changes to the Stand.-Offer Prog. & Investigation into the Establishment of Stand.-Offer Prices under the Sustainably Priced Energy Enter. Dev. (Vt. 2014). “” 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). The projects will not share common roads, control facilities, or connections to the electric grid.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002(14) — 6 cases
In re Programmatic Changes to the Stand.-Offer Prog., 2014 VT 29 (Vt. 2014). “” 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). The projects will not share common roads, control facilities, or connections to the electric grid.”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
In re Investigation Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §§ 30 & 209 into whether the Initiated Site Preparation at Apple Hill in Bennington, Vermont (Allco Renewable Energy Ltd., Appellant), 2021 VT 92 (Vt. 2021). “0-MW “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14)). In September 2021, we reversed the PUC’s denial of a CPG for the Apple Hill facility and remanded for additional proceedings.”
In Re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC, 2026 VT 8 (Vt. 2026). “10 constituted a single plant under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14) (2012). In re Chelsea Solar LLC, 2021 VT 27 , ¶ 2, 214 Vt.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002(15) — 1 case
Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Roisman (D. Vt. 2020). “]” 30 V.S.A. § 8002(15) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002(16) — 1 case
In re Petition of Stowe Cady Hill Solar, LLC, 182 A.3d 53 (Vt. 2018). “30 V.S.A. § 8002(16). The energy produced by the net-metered system is fed into the existing distribution network and serves to offset the cost of the electricity used by the owner of the net-metered system.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002(18) — 4 cases
In re Petition of Portland Street Solar LLC, 2021 VT 67 (Vt. 2021). “1 Interpreting the definition of “plant” set forth in 30 V.S.A. § 8002(18), the Commission determined that the proposed Portland Street project would be part of a single plant along with the already-approved adjacent Golden 1 Apart from an exception not relevant here, Vermont…”
In Re Petition of Otter Creek Solar LLC, 2025 VT 65 (Vt. 2025). “After briefing, the hearing officer issued a proposed decision, recommending that the Commission deny the CPG for Warner Solar because it formed a “single plant” with Battle Creek pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 8002(18). The Department of Public Service and Otter Creek filed comments…”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
In re Petition of Chelsea Solar LLC, Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, for a Certificate of Pub. Good Authorizing the Installation & Operation of the \Willow Road Proj., 2021 VT 27 (2021). “Developer challenges the PUC’s conclusion that the Willow Road and Apple Hill projects are one “plant” under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14). It argues that the facilities have separate points of interconnection, the output of each plant would be limited to 2.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 8002(2) — 2 cases
In Re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC (Vt. 2026). “Where a standard-offer contract is awarded, the proposed solar facility must achieve “commissioning”—in other words, be “put into operation”—within two years, unless the contract recipient requests and receives an extension of the standard-offer commissioning deadline.”
In Re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC, 2026 VT 8 (Vt. 2026). “10 constituted a single plant under 30 V.S.A. § 8002(14) (2012). In re Chelsea Solar LLC, 2021 VT 27 , ¶ 2, 214 Vt.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.