Burlington Electric Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-10-08
Time: 17:00

BURLINGTON
 BOARD OF ELECTRIC COMMISSIONERS
 585 Pine Street
 Burlington, Vermont 05401
 To be held at Burlington Electric Department (and)
 Via Microsoft Teams
 +1 802-489-6254
 Conference ID: 636 059 465#
LARA BONN, CHAIR
ALI KENNEY
SCOTT MOODY
ANDY VOTA, VICE CHAIR
 AGENDA
 Regular Meeting of the Board of Electric Commissioners
 Wednesday, October 8, 2025 – 5:00 PM


 1. Agenda

 2. Minutes of the September 10, 2025 Meeting

 3. Public Forum

 4. Monthly Impact Minute (Discussion)

 5. Commissioners’ Corner (Discussion)

 6. General Manager’s Update (Discussion)

 7. August 2025 Financial Review (Presentation & Discussion) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 8. FY25 Audit Report (Presentation & Discussion) – Amanda Hurlbut and KPMG

 9. Proposed Executive Session to discuss FY25 Audit Report

 10. Triennial Customer Satisfaction Survey (Presentation & Discussion) -- Michael Moser, UVM Center for Rural
 Studies

 11. EV Charging License Agreement – (Discussion and Vote) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock and Munir Kasti

 12. Miscellaneous Service Fees – (Discussion and Vote) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 13. IT Update – (Presentation & Discussion) – Erica Ferland

 14. Proposed Executive Session for Cybersecurity Update

 15. Commissioners’ Check-In (Discussion)

 Agenda prepared by Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 Attest: _________________________________________
 Elena Alexander, Board Clerk
If anyone from the public wishes to speak during the public forum portion of the Commission Meeting and/or wishes to be present for the
Meeting of the Board of Electric Commission via Microsoft Teams, please email ealexander@burlingtonelectric.com to receive a link to the
Meeting.


Note: Members of the public may speak during the Public Forum, or when recognized by the Chair during consideration of a specific agenda item.

BURLINGTON
 BOARD OF ELECTRIC COMMISSIONERS
 585 Pine Street
 Burlington, Vermont 05401
 To be held at Burlington Electric Department (and)
 Via Microsoft Teams
 +1 802-489-6254
 Conference ID: 636 059 465#
LARA BONN, CHAIR
ALI KENNEY
SCOTT MOODY
ANDY VOTA, VICE CHAIR
 AGENDA
 Regular Meeting of the Board of Electric Commissioners
 Wednesday, October 8, 2025 – 5:00 PM


 1. Agenda

 2. Minutes of the September 10, 2025 Meeting

 3. Public Forum

 4. Monthly Impact Minute (Discussion)

 5. Commissioners’ Corner (Discussion)

 6. General Manager’s Update (Discussion)

 7. August 2025 Financial Review (Presentation & Discussion) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 8. FY25 Audit Report (Presentation & Discussion) – Amanda Hurlbut and KPMG

 9. Proposed Executive Session to discuss FY25 Audit Report

 10. Triennial Customer Satisfaction Survey (Presentation & Discussion) -- Michael Moser, UVM Center for Rural
 Studies

 11. EV Charging License Agreement – (Discussion and Vote) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock and Munir Kasti

 12. Miscellaneous Service Fees – (Discussion and Vote) – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 13. IT Update – (Presentation & Discussion) – Erica Ferland

 14. Proposed Executive Session for Cybersecurity Update

 15. Commissioners’ Check-In (Discussion)

 Agenda prepared by Emily Stebbins-Wheelock

 Attest: _________________________________________
 Elena Alexander, Board Clerk
If anyone from the public wishes to speak during the public forum portion of the Commission Meeting and/or wishes to be present for the
Meeting of the Board of Electric Commission via Microsoft Teams, please email ealexander@burlingtonelectric.com to receive a link to the
Meeting.


Note: Members of the public may speak during the Public Forum, or when recognized by the Chair during consideration of a specific agenda item.
 DRAFT MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
 BURLINGTON ELECTRIC COMMISSION

 Wednesday, September 10, 2025

The regular meeting of the Burlington Electric Commission was convened at 5:01 pm on
Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at Burlington Electric Department, 585 Pine Street, Burlington,
Vermont, and on Microsoft Teams.

Attendance
  Channel 17 was present to record this meeting.
  Commissioners Lara Bonn, Ali Kenney, Scott Moody, Andy Vota, and Bethany Whitaker were
 present.
  Staff members Elena Alexander, Paul Alexander, Chris Burns, Mike Kanarick, Munir Kasti,
 Lincoln Sprague, Darren Springer, and Emily Stebbins-Wheelock were present at 585 Pine
 Street, and James Gibbons was present via Microsoft Teams.
  Public member Alan Bjerke was present at 585 Pine Street.

Agenda
There were no proposed changes to the agenda.

Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Moody made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2025, Commission
Meeting; Commissioner Vota seconded the motion. Vote: 5 ayes 0 nays.

Public Forum
Alan Bjerke, Burlington resident: Spoke about miscellaneous service fees, particularly the initial
service fee, stating that in March 2024, the City Council approved new fees, such as an initial service
fee of $6 to replace the current $30 fee. Mr. Bjerke, noting that BED was in the process of seeking a
second round (due to correction of calculation errors and to adjust fees to align with current wages
and vehicle costs) of regulatory approval to implement the fees, expressed concern about the delay
and requested that the Electric Commission help ensure that BED implements the changes by
December 15, 2025.

Commissioners’ Corner
Commissioners welcomed Ali Kenney to the Commission, expressing enthusiasm for her valuable
experience and strategic thinking. The Commission also thanked Commissioner Whitaker for her
service and insightful contributions as both a Commissioner and Vice Chair.


 1
Commissioner Vota inquired about the vacancy that will be left by Commissioner Whitaker’s
resignation, noting that it was not yet posted on the City of Burlington's website, which lists current
openings for boards and commissions. Commissioner Vota sought clarity on when the vacancy
would be announced. General Manager Springer explained that the next step is for Commissioner
Whitaker to formally submit her resignation, triggering the vacancy posting process by the City
Clerk's office.

General Manager’s Update
General Manager Springer started by reading a communication from Ms. Stebbins-Wheelock to Mr.
Bjerke concerning miscellaneous service fees filed on September 3, 2025. Initially, the fees were
intended to be pursued, pending PUC approval, but a subsequent withdrawal of the tariff filing
occurred after identifying calculation errors, acknowledged by the BED team. Given the elapsed
time since the last cost update, a revision based on the latest rates for labor, fringe benefits, and
vehicles is necessary. An updated proposal is planned for the October 8, 2025 Commission meeting
and subsequently will go to the Board of Finance and City Council for approval before being refiled
with the PUC. This thorough revision aims to ensure accuracy and to facilitate a smoother approval
process.

Next, GM Springer focused on the August 29, 2025 Department of Public Service (DPS) response to
a July 31, 2025 PUC letter. The Department recommended a third-party audit of BED’s business and
regulatory processes. GM Springer acknowledged past performance issues, including the McNeil
REC error, and stated that the team is taking steps to enhance accountability and communication
through regular meetings with the Department. GM Springer stated that a comprehensive review of
the REC process has been conducted with interdisciplinary meetings that led to a detailed memo to
guide future REC reporting activity. GM Springer also acknowledged that energy efficiency
programs are under scrutiny and that BED has been closely analyzing its processes in this area,
incorporating DPS feedback as BED aims for revised and corrected processes in the coming weeks.

There are two vacancies in the Policy and Planning department that BED seeks to fill to bolster
regulatory and power supply efforts. Changes to incentive programs will be paused to concentrate
on the successful implementation of existing projects. A new internal regulatory review structure
has been introduced to regularly exchange information on deadlines, filings, and responsibilities,
with GM Springer directly overseeing all PUC filings to ensure accuracy during this critical period.

GM Springer emphasized that the third-party review will provide valuable recommendations that
will be incorporated into BED’s efforts to create better processes that will help BED restore
regulatory credibility. The third-party firm will not be a traditional auditor (BED’s annual financial
statements are already audited by an external firm); rather, it is likely to be a consulting firm
specializing in municipal utility operations.

 2
Commissioner Vota asked GM Springer his thoughts on staffing, maybe to include a regulatory
supervisor. GM Springer noted that, while regulatory tasks currently are handled by a small
segment of the team, creating a regulatory supervisor role may be helpful and that any staffing
decisions will be postponed until the third-party consultants have completed their review. GM
Springer stated that BED is undertaking root cause analyses concerning REC issues and challenges
within the energy efficiency program.

Commissioner Vota asked about concerns raised by Mr. Bjerke regarding fee errors. GM Springer
clarified that ratepayers were not overcharged, but rather that current fees have complied with the
Department’s approved fee tariff. GM Springer stated that revised fees are based on recent
evaluations. The updated fee structure will be prepared for the October Commission meeting, and
GM Springer will advocate for a swift review process from the Board of Finance and City Council.

GM Springer shared plans to test the use of 99 percent renewable diesel at the gas turbine, and
plans for an enhanced EV incentives announcement on September 22, 2025 at 1pm.

Financial Review
Ms. Stebbins-Wheelock first presented an update on the preliminary, unaudited financial results for
FY25, which show an actual net income of $2.3 million as compared to the budgeted target of $3.3
million. A post-closing adjustment to sales to customers related to unbilled revenue improved sales
revenue, but the annual adjustment related to pension liability increased expense by $1.4 million,
affecting net income but not the Moody's metric for evaluating revenues available for debt service.
Without the pension adjustment, net income would have been approximately $3.7 million,
exceeding budget expectations. Preliminary financial metrics for June show a debt service coverage
ratio of 5.03 and an adjusted debt service coverage ratio of 1.29.

For July FY26, the Department reported an actual net loss of $52,000 compared to a budgeted loss
of $279,000, an outperformance of $227,000. Sales to customers were $296,000 higher than
budget. Other revenues, mostly energy efficiency utility reimbursement, experienced a negative
variance of $84,000. Net power supply expenses were $107,000 higher than budgeted, primarily
due to higher transmission and purchased power costs offset by fuel savings and capacity and
ancillary market revenues. Other operating and maintenance expenses were favorable by $155,000.

July FY26 capital expenditures were $240,000 or 2% of the fiscal year budget. Unrestricted cash as
of July 31 was $11.713 million as compared to a budget of $11.8 million. The debt service coverage
ratio for the most recent 12 months is 4.92, the adjusted debt service coverage ratio is 1.24, and
days cash on hand were 141 including the $10 million line of credit.

Commissioner Kenney asked about transmission fees. Mr. Gibbons explained that the transmission
cost structure is complex. Variables driving these costs include the ISO New England peak load,
 3
Vermont's peak load, and BED’s peak load, and the transmission rate. The Department updates its
year-end forecast monthly based on year-to-date information.

Efficiency Programs Update
Director of Energy Services Chris Burns presented an update on the performance and challenges of
BED’s major energy efficiency programs that are part of BED’s energy efficiency utility (EEU)
designation, with an emphasis on the 2024-26 program period. Mr. Burns outlined how the EEU
energy efficiency charge (EEC) allocations mirror customer sales, with 75 percent distributed to the
commercial sector and 25 percent to residential clients, reflecting their respective contributions to
overall energy savings.

Mr. Burns highlighted the importance of proactive engagement with businesses to identify energy-
saving opportunities, particularly in the HVAC sector, which has seen a shift from simpler
retrofitting efforts—like replacing incandescent lights with LEDs—to more complex systems that
can last decades.

Engagement with customers has been balanced between those seeking assistance and those
proactively contacted by the EEU, with many long-term partnerships formed within the design and
contracting communities. Increased customer inquiries regarding high bills during economic
challenges demonstrate a growing need for managing operational costs. Additionally, new
commercial construction now adheres to stringent energy efficiency standards set by the state,
which complicates the claim for savings.

Mr. Burns emphasized that traditional checklist approaches are yielding to energy modeling for
measuring the impact of construction programs, as building performance needs monitoring over an
extended period to ensure optimal efficiency. In the residential sector, collaborative efforts with
VGS are improving energy use in both low-income and market-rate homes, especially through dual-
fuel systems and weatherization strategies. Commissioner Moody asked about the effectiveness of
window replacement and, in response, Mr. Burns shared that attic insulation and overall air-sealing
were much more cost-effective.

The presentation also reviewed the role of heat pumps in enhancing energy efficiency, particularly
the integration of ductless systems and the potential for air-to-water heat pumps in homes
previously reliant on hydronic systems. The dedication to steering residential consumers toward
energy-efficient appliances is evident, as is the commitment to high-performance residential
construction exceeding existing codes.

Despite sluggish progress in 2024, particularly in the commercial sector, promising projects are
anticipated to invigorate efforts towards achieving performance goals by 2026, including notable
progress at Burlington Square and the new Burlington High School. The EEU aims to meet
 4
approximately 80 to 90 percent of its performance targets, while unspent funds may be returned to
ratepayers if goals are not met.

Overall, the collaborative policies and initiatives spearheaded by the EEU have led to a significant
reduction in energy consumption since 1989, marking a noteworthy achievement in light of
Burlington's growth.

Street Lighting Tariff
GM Springer shared that the Burlington Police Department has proposed the installation of security
cameras on utility poles to enhance public safety. The Department needed to identify a billing
mechanism for the cameras’ electricity use, as individually metering each camera would be
impractical and costly due to their minimal energy consumption. To address this, the Department is
proposing an update to its street lighting tariff that will set lat monthly rates per camera. One
camera will be metered to monitor the accuracy of the lat rate. The tariff contains a similar revision
to address City-operated parking ban lights. The energy usage and therefore the expected revenue
from the cameras and parking ban lights are minor -- approximately $250 annually for the cameras
and $1,300 annually for the parking ban lights – leading to the decision to use a streamlined billing
strategy. At the same time, the Department is proposing other updates to the tariff to align with
current technology and practices.

Commissioner Vota made the motion “I move to approve and recommend that the City Council
authorize the Burlington Electric Department to ile the updated street lighting tariff with the
Vermont Public Utility Commission for approval.” Commissioner Whitaker seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 ayes 0 nays

Relevate Power Contract
In public session, Mr. Gibbons asked that the Commission enter into executive session to discuss the
terms and pricing of a new hydropower proposal to replace the contract with FirstLight that
expires on December 31, 2025. Contracting for replacement energy is essential to maintain the
Department's 100 percent renewability and associated statutory exemptions.

Commissioner Moody made the motion “I move that the Commission enter into executive session
with BED Staff to discuss the Relevate Power contract terms under the provisions of Title 1, Section
313(a) (1) (A) of the Vermont Statutes.” Commissioner Whitaker seconded the motion. Vote: 5 ayes
0 nays

Executive Session start time: 7:06pm
Executive Session end time: 7:38pm

Commissioner Kenney made the motion “I move that the Burlington Electric Commission
authorizes the General Manager or his delegee to enter a contract for up to 50,000 MWH of energy
and RECs and capacity (i.e. renewable energy) with Relevate Power for a term of up to five years,
 5
beginning no earlier than January 1, 2026, with a cost structure not to exceed that discussed in
executive session.” Commissioner Moody seconded the motion. Vote 4 ayes 0 nays (Commissioner
Whitaker abstained from the vote)

Commissioner Kenney made the motion “I move that the Burlington Electric Commission further
authorizes the General Manager or his delegee to seek approval from the Burlington City Council to
extend the just described contract for an additional five-year term (for a total of ten years from its
start date) commencing at the end of the initial five-year term, at the same price.” Commissioner
Moody seconded the motion. Vote 4 ayes 0 nays (Commissioner Whitaker abstained from the vote)

Commissioners’ Check-In
Commissioner Moody thanked Commissioner Whitaker for her dedication over the last 4 years as
Commission Vice Chair and wished her the best in her future endeavors.

Adjourn
Commissioner Moody made a motion to adjourn; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Vota;
Commission vote; 4 ayes 0 nays (Commissioner Whitaker was not present for the vote)

The meeting of the Burlington Electric Commission adjourned at 7:42p.m.

Microsoft Teams transcript used to create minutes drafted by Elena Alexander, Board Clerk, and edited
by Mike Kanarick, Manager of Customer Care, Communications & Energy Services and Emily Stebbins-
Wheelock CFO & Manager of Strategy and Innovation.

 Attest: _______________________________________________
 Elena Alexander, Board Clerk




 6
To: Burlington Board of Electric Commissioners

From: Darren Springer, General Manager

Date: October 3, 2025

Subject: September 2025 Highlights of Department Activities



General Manager – Darren Springer
 Enhanced EV incentives: on September 22, BED was joined by Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak,
 representatives from Vermont’s congressional delegation and the Sierra Club Vermont, and 19
 fifth-graders from Ms. Aziza Malik’s Champlain Elementary School class, announced a
 temporary increase to BED’s electric vehicle (EV) incentives to help partially offset the
 upcoming September 30, 2025 expiration of the federal tax credit for EV purchases. BED’s EV
 rebates on the purchase or lease of new EVs are boosted to $5,000 (from $2,300), with
 enhanced incentives of $5,700 (from $3,000) for income-qualified customers. Even larger
 rebates are available for higher-mileage drivers. Read the press release here.
 Forestry Report: The final report was issued by K2Q Consulting on the McNeil forestry review,
 and it will be included in the Commission’s packet. John Bryant presented on the report at the
 TEUC meeting September 30.
 R99 Testing Complete: The R99 testing at the GT is complete, and we await results (sometime in
 November). This topic will be covered during a new Commission segment called Monthly
 Impact Minute where members of the BED team who do not always have a chance to present to
 the Commission can highlight their work.
 REV panel: BED will be participating in the Renewable Energy Vermont conference on a panel
 focused on utility rates and affordability in Vermont.
 Regulatory Update: At the Commission meeting we can provide an update on where things
 stand in several regulatory dockets of interest.

Center for Innovation – Emily Stebbins-Wheelock
 Responded to Moody’s annual portfolio review information request.
 FY25 financial statement audit substantially complete.
 Filed proposed 2026 energy efficiency charge calculation for approval with PUC.
 PUC public hearing on 2025 rate case was held on September 24, 2025. Two members of the
 public provided comments.
 Signed short-term renewable energy purchase contract (hydro for September and October).
 PUC approved commercial flexible load management pilot rate for Building GIANTS program.
 Welcomed UVM Fellow Caroline Caitlin, who will conduct a customer segmentation analysis to
 support a Net Zero Energy strategic communications plan and support the Department of
 Permitting and Inspections with Rental Weatherization Ordinance tracking and compliance.
 Sustainability Director Jen Green met with sustainability colleagues from South Burlington,
 Williston, Winooski, and the CCRPC to discuss EV fleet adoption, energy policy, and code
 enforcement.
 September 2025 – Department Highlights



 On behalf of the Mayor, Sustainability Director Jen Green attended the Climate Mayors network
 meeting in New York City as part of Climate Week and the USGBC Local Leadership meeting in
 Boston.

Center for Safety and Risk Management – Paul Alexander
Safety
 The Gas Turbine R99 Test Run was completed on 9/17/25. The 2-day event involved a safety
 site plan that consisted of: daily morning safety briefings to include PPE; hearing protection;
 heat exhaustion symptoms; daily work plan assignments; GT Do Not Operate status; the
 transfer of safety rules and hazardous information to the Environmental testing firm, Republic
 Services and Sulzer engineering. Finally, a morning scaffolding inspection was completed every
 day prior to workers using it.
 Safety and the Operations Technician successfully evaluated and commissioned the new College
 Street remote racking device. It was installed & evaluated under a Switching Order that was
 completed on 8/26/25. The crews can now be at a safe distance of 25ft away from the front of
 the breaker panel and not be directly exposed to ARC Flash potential.
 As an ongoing part of the new SCADA implementation, System Operations Dispatch issued to
 Operations the Draft DMS Training & Go-Live Document for review. The specific focus is the
 FLISR – Fault Location, Isolation & System Restoration & LOV – Loss of Voltage Function
Environmental
 The VT DEC has received payment and now BED McNeil’s Industrial Discharge permit renewal
 application is complete. The deadline was met, as it was the end of September 2025. Below is a
 clip from the VT DEC Title 3 letter:
 o “The Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that your
 application for renewal is timely and sufficient for the purposes of Title 3
 Section 814.”
 McNeil passed its annual RATA (Relative Accuracy Test Audit). This is the annual accuracy
 compliance test for the Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) that measures
 emissions from the plant. TRC is the firm that completes the 2-day audit.

Risk Management
 Complied and reported Workers’ Compensation Payroll summary information by category
 codes for Travelers’ annual audit.
 Coordinated McNeil response to the insurance company engineers/inspection questions
 (Zurich)
 Revisiting BED’s purchasing policy in conjunction with the COB’s latest document.
 Sat in on our Legal department’s training session on the LawVu software platform.

Purchasing/General Services
 RFP for the all-electric truck we are having vendors give us more information on the battery
 boom versus drive
 RFP for all electric battery-operated forklift send out & returned.
 Meeting with GE to get ready for the major outage in 2028




 Page 2
 September 2025 – Department Highlights



Center for Operations & Reliability – Munir Kasti
Engineering, Grid Services & Operations
 Issued work order for overhead reconductoring work on Institute Road, St. Paul and Wells
 Streets.
 Completed reconductoring work on South Cove Road, Plattsburg Ave, and Rose Street.
 Completed service upgrades on North Winooski Avenue and Murray Street.
 Replaced three overloaded transformers.

SAIFI & CAIDI Outage Metrics:
BED’s distribution system experienced 15 outages in September 2025 (1 unscheduled and 14
scheduled). BED’s SAIFI for the Month of September was 0.03 interruptions per customer and
CAIDI was 2.05 hours per interruption. BED's YTD SAIFI is 0.24 interruptions per customer and
YTD CAIDI is 1.19 hours per interruption. BED experienced a high CAIDI value during the month of
September due to an after-hours animal contact and various overloaded transformer upgrades.

The following figure shows BED’s historical YTD SAIFI and CAIDI:




The following figure shows BED’s historical September SAIFI and CAIDI:




 Page 3
 September 2025 – Department Highlights




The following figure shows BED’s historical Unplanned Outages:




Generation

McNeil Generating Station
Month Generation: 22,687 MWh
YTD Generation: 179,405 MWh
Month Capacity Factor: 63.02%
Month Availability: 73.29%
Hours of Operation: 527.72 hours

Sydney Schlitt Started the Yard worker Position September 8, 2025 and is in the process of training
to be on shift.

Winooski One Hydroelectric Station
Monthly Generation: 35.4 MWh
YTD Generation: 12,238 MWh
Month Capacity Factor: 1%
Annual Capacity Factor: 25.24%
Month Availability: 1% due to lack to flows.

Winooski One projects include continuing with the FERC Relicense impact studies and starting the
turbine overhauls.

Burlington Gas Turbine
Month Generation: 181.62 MWh
YTD Generation: 567.7 MWh
Month Capacity Factor: 4.38%
Month Availability: 87%
Hours of Operation Unit A: 11.1 hours
Hours of Operation Unit B: 11.1 hours




 Page 4
 September 2025 – Department Highlights




Solar (Pine Street 107 kW)
Month Generation: 11 MWh (same as previous year)
YTD Generation: 90 MWh
Month Capacity Factor: 14.7%
Month Availability: 100%

Solar (Airport 499 kW)
Month Generation: 60 MWh (same as previous year)
YTD Generation: 465 MWh
Month Capacity Factor: 16.7%
Month Availability: 100%

Center for Customer Care & Energy Services – Mike Kanarick
Energy Services

 UVM & UVMMC
 ES is working with staff and contractors on several ongoing projects.
 Working with UVM on Howe Library / HVAC Re-Commissioning – UVM’s controls group
  implemented control sequence improvements in the Howe Library’s DDC during late spring of
  this year. This included implementation of an occupancy schedule, improved VFD control of
  ventilation fans, and implementation of an economizer sequence. BED received trending data
  from UVM this month for electric, chilled water and steam use and we have begun an analysis to
  determine a magnitude of energy savings for the project.
 Continued working with UVMMC on a main parking garage ventilation fan replacement project
  that includes two 150-HP blower fans that need to run 24/7 for safety purposes.

Other Services
 Continued Decline in New Development and Energy Efficiency Activity
  As previously reported, over the past several months few new construction zoning
 applications have been submitted to Department of Permitting and Inspections (DPI),
 indicating a decline in near term new development. High lending costs and construction
 costs continue to slow this market.
  ES also continues to see a slowdown in EEU and Tier 3 activity with smaller and medium-
 sized commercial customers. As report widely in the media, these customers continue to
 face economic headwinds where discretionary energy efficiency, and beneficial
 electrification improvements, are understandably not a priority. BED and VGS continue to
 work with the Burlington 2030 District and CEDO/Business and Workforce Development
 (BWD) to get the word out about our services and that we are here to help.
 ES continues to:
  Work on new construction projects such as the conversion of the office space at 1 Lawson
 Lane to 33 apartments, CHT’s 70-unit building at Cambrian Rise, Burlington High School
 with a geothermal heating and cooling system, the former YMCA conversion to apartments,
 Burlington Square (aka City Place), CHT’s Post Apartments on S. Winooski Ave and Mater
 Christi’s Early Education Center.
  Work on HVAC system replacement projects such as the 60-Ton chiller replacement at
 the100 Bank St. office building.


 Page 5
 September 2025 – Department Highlights



  Support the customer care team with a number of residential and commercial customer
 high bill concerns.
  Partner with the VGS ES team on a number of residential weatherization and heat pump
 projects and commercial retrofit projects.

Electric Vehicles & Charging Stations
 The EVSE (ChargePoint, Flo & AmpUp) dispensed a total of 40.5MWh and supported 2,231
 sessions. The ChargePoint EVSE served 844 unique drivers.
 Approximately 39% (or 15.9 MWh) of the energy sold from the entire network is attributed to
 the Pine St., Marketplace Garage, and Pease Lot DCFC’s. The Pease Lot DCFC dispensed the most
 energy.
 EV and PHEV rebates to date – 1,133 (of this 253 LMI rebates to date)
 Customers currently participating in the new EV Charging Rate- 410
 Single-family & multifamily home EV charging stations rebates to date – 359

Heat Pump Installations to Date
Total Heat Pump Technology Installations including Multi-Family New Construction Projects &
Installations in existing buildings since the September 2019 NZEC announcement – 3,076
installations (of this 218 LMI rebates to date)

Customer Care
 Call Answer Time (75% in 20 seconds): September 2025 75.9%, August 78.4%, July 77.5%,
 June 69.4%, May 61.4%, April 86.1%. September 2024 75.2%, August 83%, July 76.5%, June
 74.6%, May 69.2%, April 85.8%.

 September 2025 Stats: please see dashboard for additional metrics categories.




 Page 6
 September 2025 – Department Highlights




 Complaints to DPS about Customer Care Team
 6 5




 # of Complaints
 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 0
 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
 2024 2024 2024 2024 2025 2025 2025
 Calendar Year


Communications and Marketing

 Net Zero Energy Festival – A Supercharged Day of Family Fun: on Sunday, September 7, BED
 hosted our 4th annual NZE Fest during Art Hop weekend. Activities for people of all ages focused
 on reducing fossil fuel use and electrifying everything, including: renewably-powered food
 trucks; games and activities for children; Star 92.9’s radio personalities Mike & Mary; live
 music, raffles; E-bike test rides; EV showcase; mobile bike repair unit; bike parking; carshare
 and biking partners; BED energy experts; and more.

 Art Hop sponsorship: BED sponsored SEABA’s Art Hop weekend (Sept. 5-7), providing grocey
 store bags and lineworker pens for Kids Hop and hosting the “HOPE” sculpture and again
 participating in “Light Hop,” with SEABA installing LED lighting on the building at night.

 Renewable Energy Vermont Conference: BED will be tabling at this conference held at the
 Hilton DoubleTree Hotel in South Burlington on October 15.

 Net Zero Energy Podcast: we invite you to take a listen at burlingtonelectric.com/podcast. Our
 latest episode features Local Motion Executive Director Christina Erickson.

 Full website visits for September 2025




 Top-performing Facebook & Instagram posts



 Page 7
 September 2025 – Department Highlights



Net Zero Energy Festival




 Page 8
 Burlington Electric Department
Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil




 John Bryant
 K2QC Consulting LLC
 Holden, Maine 04429
 207.745.9955
 k2qcconsulting@gmail.com

 September 30, 2025
Introduction
This report serves as an independent review of the forestry assessment and analysis for the McNeil
Generating Station (‘McNeil’). As owner of K2QC Consulting, LLC (‘K2QC’), I contracted with the
City of Burlington Electric Company (‘BED’) on May 2, 2025 to provide a forestry assessment and
analysis for McNeil. BED’s RFP 014-25C defines report expectations with audit standards detailed
in Appendix A. Founded in 2020, K2QC is a forestry consulting company specializing in forestry,
forest management, forest operations, and organizational design.

Overview
The policy of BED to accept delivery of whole tree chips from Vermont harvesting operations that
are certified by a professional forester and meet the “Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping
Operations in Vermont” are the central issue for the report that follows.

Disclosure Statement
When I submitted my work proposal in late February, I did not know the city of Burlington had a
wood chip to energy plant, nor did I know BED had a forestry staff or anything about the supply
system in place to provide wood waste to the McNeil plant. After BED’s acceptance of my work
proposal and the follow-up BED contract completion in early May, I began work in late May with a
clean slate and other than information in the McNeil RFP, I know little about the task in front of me.
It was an interesting, informative experience.

Executive Summary
BED has been practicing responsible wood residue purchasing and harvest plan certification since
the early 1980’s using sound, silvicultural based methods to ensure sustainable timber management
on sites managed by forestry consultants or BED foresters. The harvesting policy is the foundation
for acceptance of wood chips into the McNeil system. During my field visits, I observed no chipping
of trees that could be sold to higher use roundwood or sawlog markets. In my opinion, loggers have
no incentive to sell or chip trees that could be sold for a higher return to other markets. I identified
no significant issues worth noting in this report. This report identifies recommendations for
improvement.

Acknowledgement
I want to thank and acknowledge the BED forestry team – Betsy Lesnikoski, Seth Clifford, Don
Tobi, and Kevin Fink for their time and efforts to provide requested documents and harvest plans,
answer my questions, educate me to the McNeil system certification requirements, and escort me
to the chip receiving locations and BED certified logging sites in Vermont and northeast New York.

Chief Forester Betsy Lesnikoski and the BED foresters are well versed in the McNeil system,
state laws and regulations in Vermont and New York, logging service contractor (‘logger’)
dynamics, and the McNeil chip purchase certification process. BED’s forestry team were excellent
resources as I researched pertinent documents, public records, historical discussions, and the
extensive BED certification protocols. BED has a history of continuous improvement, public
feedback, and regular reviews of their forestry practices.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 2 of 14
McNeil LLC
Biomass - Wood Residues
The term biomass is widely used in various publications and public policy debates, and means many
things depending on the derivation of, or end use of the material. For use in this report, I define
biomass as ‘wood residues’ from timber harvest operations used for energy production – this
includes chips, grindings, sawmill residues, trees with no higher use market, and logging yard
debris. The wood residues from forestry operations consist of tree tops, branches, damaged, dying,
or dead trees, irregular or bent stem sections, and inferior trees with no market that are removed
during timber harvest operations to improve growing conditions for the better quality and more
desirable trees.

Landowners, foresters, and loggers make decisions on the use of wood residues to benefit
landowners economic return, forest stand aesthetics, soil stability during yarding, wildlife habitat, and
timber market availability and value. Trees grow in Vermont and northeast New York in an incredibly
challenging environment due to rapidly changing weather conditions (floods, extreme wind events,
extreme winter cold temperatures, snow, ice, and ever-changing climatic events), insects, and
diseases. These conditions create defective trees that compete with the better formed, desirable
trees for light, water, and nutrients to grow. Foresters and landowners make periodic decisions
regarding preferred tree species, specific forest management objectives, and desired rotation age
which impacts decisions on tree removal and retention of tops, branches, and tree stems in a stand.

Ultimately, a robust wood residue chip market provides increased options for forest management
decisions, a renewable resource for energy, and a healthier logging community. Strong diverse
timber markets are the basis for good forest management practices, when proper harvest planning
and oversight are implemented. The McNeil system is a valuable wood residue market for loggers.

Field Visits to Harvest Sites
With the assistance of BED foresters, I visited 14 active and 5 inactive or closed winter harvest
sites selected randomly in Vermont and northeast New York to view timber harvest operations and
talk with loggers about their planning process, regional timber markets, and impressions of the
McNeil system. The loggers visited represent approximately 58% of the 2024 volume delivered to
the McNeil system. Given the coordination and time allocated, I did not have time to visit every
harvest site or logger – I viewed a good cross section of loggers and diversity of harvest activity.
During my field visits, I had conversations with the following loggers or in-field representatives of the
logger.
 Darren McDonald Patrick Remillard Montgomery Logging
 Jason Lathrop Tom Lincoln Justin Lathrop
 Patrick Gregoire Mike Parker Richard Hallstrom Logging
 Gabe Parent Kenny Bigelow Adirondack Forest Fiber

During my initial visit to Burlington, I toured the McNeil plant and the Swanton yard to understand the
process of receiving and using wood chips at the two points of delivery. I reviewed delivery and cost
data for the McNeil system to understand trends in recent years. I estimated 60% of the field visits
were on Vermont harvest sites with the remaining 40% in New York.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 3 of 14
McNeil LLC
Logging Service Contractor Observations
a. I was extremely impressed with the diversity of loggers and logging systems in the McNeil
 supply system, the professionalism and passion for their work, and their ability to maximize the
 value of timber to the best possible use from harvest sites.
b. Loggers speak highly of, and rely on, the McNeil system to assure silvicultural objectives are
 accomplished and local markets are utilized to optimize timber value.
c. Loggers are extremely complimentary of the Swanton Yard and the efficient process used to
 unload chip trucks and the yard operators ability to address any issues.
d. There are legitimate economic challenges for loggers in the McNeil supply system and the
 long-term supply chain, which will require continued focus on listening to suppliers and working
 together to ensure future system viability.
e. Loggers emphasized the importance of a regional wood residue market as it creates jobs in
 rural, forest-based communities, provides a revenue stream from low-value trees and wood
 residues, and supports improved silvicultural options.
f. Vermont has some of the most challenging terrain for forest management and removal of timber.
 The landscape has been worked for many centuries for dairy farms, agriculture, maple sugar
 production, timber production, and recreation. I marvel at the ability of local loggers to
 understand how to work in this landscape and sustainably produce timber products for sale.

Logging Service Contractor Comments
I had four main questions for the loggers interviewed during our field visits; 1) tell me about your
timber markets?, 2) what is your process for separating timber for these markets?, 3) what are your
thoughts about McNeil and the Swanton yard?, and 4) tell me about your interactions with BED
foresters.

Specific comments from loggers (as verbatim as possible given my field notes):
a. “McNeil is the market of last resort. We only send them wood that does not have another
 better market or make more money.”
b. “We are not required to manage for rare, threatened, and endangered species (‘RTE’) and
 would likely not know if they were present if BED foresters were not involved.”
c. “I have never had a BED forester pressure me to put more wood into a chipper.”
d. “I would not be stopping my operation and move my entire operation if BED did not require
 protection of endangered bats. BED works with us on that process.”
e. “The delivered price for chipwood is so much less than every other product, we can only
 afford to chip wood that has no other market.”
f. “When trees come to the landing, we cut them up to maximize the value for the landowner and us –
 with every part of the tree sent to the highest value market. That is so important to my financial
 success.”
g. “Sometimes the best use of tops and limbs is to stabilize the trails, so that is where it goes.”
h. “I cannot afford to just chip wood. My operation requires a healthy mix of timber.”
i. “The Swanton yard is very efficient and well run. They get my trucks in and out as soon as
 possible.”
j. “BED foresters keep me informed and aware of regulatory issues, most notably the bat
 management issues with Vermont biologists.”


Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 14
McNeil LLC
k. “We work with BED foresters to identify alternatives when ground conditions turn poor.”
l. “BED pays for wood chips received in a very timely manner. They inform us if a payment delay arises.
 If you run a business, you know how important that is for cash flow.”
m. “Our business likely would not survive without the McNeil facility.”
n. “BED foresters are enthusiastic about doing the right thing on the land. We do our best to listen and
 learn.”
o. “This equipment you see needs operators, which are in short supply. I am worried about the
 future. I personally juggle many machines in one day to keep things moving.”
p. “I depend on the McNeil system to help accomplish my harvest outcomes.’


Harvest Visit Observations
a. During my visits to ongoing harvests, I observed chipping operations that used either poor
 quality trees (unmerchantable or with no other market), tops and limbs from trees, or sections of
 trees that were removed to upgrade a section of the tree to a higher value sawlog or usable
 section for firewood or pulpwood. All higher-grade trees or sawlogs were separated out for
 delivery to firewood outlets, pulpwood mills, sawlog markets (US and Canadian), or other local
 chip using facilities (i.e., Middlebury College).
b. The harvests utilized a variety of silvicultural systems – primarily single tree selection and group
 selection techniques. The single tree selection focuses on removal of low-quality, suppressed,
 short-lived species, and overmature high-risk trees. Group selection focuses on creating
 openings in the forest to encourage natural regeneration. The silvicultural system is well
 described in the harvest plan process used by BED or the forest consultant hired by the
 landowner or logger.
c. Loggers who chip for the McNeil system use chipping as the lowest priority option. If a harvested
 tree has a higher value option (sawlogs, veneer, pallet logs, pulpwood, firewood, or other local
 markets), the logger separates the better-quality section of tree from material to be chipped.
d. I was extremely impressed with the utilization of trees on the logging operations into piles
 destined for higher use products – loggers are incentivized to sell to the highest value markets.
 It is in their company’s interest to move products to the highest value market to optimize
 returns.
e. Loggers take pride in assuring any tree removed during the harvest operation ends up in a solid
 wood form (firewood, pulpwood, or sawlogs).
f. Loggers diligently focus on keeping logging yards as organized as practicable to assure positive
 aesthetics and clear understanding of merchandized products – sawlogs, pulpwood, firewood,
 and lower value material destined for chipping. This is very evident when you visit the landings.
g. Local consulting foresters or landowner staff foresters are directly involved in 60% of the harvest
 plans that deliver wood residues to McNeil. BED interacts as required on these jobs; however,
 most of BED forester efforts focus on jobs where no foresters are involved to ensure BED
 certification requirements are addressed.
h. On inactive harvests, the wood residues were piled in preparation for chipping. The higher
 value roundwood was hauled and the low value chip piles will be chipped later.
i. On closed winter sites, the log landing was cleared and stabilized to avoid any negative aesthetic
 reaction.



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 5 of 14
McNeil LLC
Noteworthy BED Management Practices
a. The BED foresters documentation of harvest sites and field inspections are impressive and
 extremely professional – and, in my opinion, the harvest plan documentation sets a standard for
 non-public lands in the Northeast US.
b. BED foresters regularly interact with Vermont biologists, as required, to ensure RTE’s and associated
 habitat are identified and protected during harvest operations.
c. The BED harvest plan checklist includes a lengthy list of important topics – including ACT 250
 permits, protected lands identification, agricultural conversion plans, mapping of RTE habitats,
 wetlands, deer wintering areas, and rare natural communities. BED foresters understand the
 requirements and can readily speak to the importance and need for compliance on harvest sites.
d. Silvicultural prescriptions on BED harvest plans are detailed with extensive forest stand data
 and descriptions of process and desired outcomes.
e. BED has an excellent relationship with Vermont’s Natural Resource Managers including the State
 Division of Forests, Parks and Recreation, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of
 Environmental Conservation Wetlands division.
f. BED foresters regularly conduct and document harvest site inspections from locations where
 McNeil receives wood residues.
g. BED foresters work in a compliance and a chip procurement role; however, adherence to BED
 harvest standards (the compliance role) is the first priority. Working closely with suppliers has
 allowed BED to maintain standards while procuring sufficient wood residues to keep McNeil on
 line. This concept can be misleading, yet it is an important public pursuit. In a compliance role, a
 forester works to assure permitting, harvest plan compliance, and environmental issues are
 addressed properly. In a procurement role, a forester’s primary role is assurance that their
 market gets the timber or chips from the logger and typically does not oversee the environmental
 tasks. High accolades to BED foresters who seem to focus on the right tasks given the need to
 balance compliance to standards while maintaining supply of wood residues. Given my
 background, it is clear BED foresters clearly know their role in the process.

Noteworthy McNeil System Practices
a. The Swanton yard receiving system is a success story with recent improvements resulting in a
 top-notch, well-run yard. Any wood receiving facility that gets delivery trucks in and out quickly
 will be a preferred delivery destination.
b. The Swanton yard is required to deliver 75% of the wood residue volume for McNeil by rail. This
 requires close coordination between the Swanton Yard and McNeil.
c. The McNeil logger payment process administered by BED appears to be a huge success given
 discussions with loggers.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 6 of 14
McNeil LLC
BED Harvest Policy Audit Standards (from Appendix A – pages 11 to 17 of the BED RFP 014-25C)
The BED policy standards, the stated audit question (from the BED RFP) and K2QC observations are
noted below.

A. It will be the policy of BED to accept delivery of whole tree chips only from harvesting operations in
 Vermont certified by a professional forester as meeting the criteria of “good forestry practice” as
 outlined below. BED foresters or their authorized agents will conduct periodic on-site inspections
 to insure compliance with the following practices. Unresolved violations of these practices will
 result in the termination of chip purchase from the offending producer.
 Evaluate whether; 1) harvest sites are periodically inspected, 2) identified issues reach a resolution,
 and 3) whether unresolved violations result in termination of chip purchasing.
 Confirmation of harvest site inspection reports and discussion with BED foresters and
 loggers support the implementation of this policy. Specific examples were cited to
 support this policy.

B. The use of necessary and applicable erosion and sedimentation control practices will be
 required. Every harvesting contractor will become familiar with the publication AMP’s for Water
 Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont. Contractors will be required to implement procedures
 outlined in the guide to the satisfaction of BED foresters.
 Evaluate whether the AMPs are implemented on jobs.
 Confirmation of harvest sites and inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 and loggers support the proper implementation of this policy.

C. Consideration for visual quality will be required:
 1. All refuse will be removed from the landing/logging site prior to termination of the operation.
 Wood waste will be removed or buried and brush piles leveled to the extent possible.
 2. Appropriate techniques will be used adjacent to major hiking trails to protect the integrity of
 the trail and the hiking experience.
 3. Landings will be laid out so as to reduce the adverse visual impact.
 Confirm that closeout includes removal of debris and appropriate treatment of woody waste.
 Confirmation on inspection reports and discussions with BED foresters support the proper
 implementation of this policy as stated in 1 and 3. No confirmation on statement 2, as I made
 no visits to harvest sites adjacent to trails.

D. Wildlife and fisheries will be given consideration in harvest planning:
 1. Landowners will be made aware of any negative impacts to wildlife or fisheries relating to a
 proposed chip harvest operation on their property.
 2. For all sites within Vermont from which wood fuel will be purchased by BED, a BED forester
 will visit the site with the landowner and/or harvesting contractor and confer in developing
 a harvesting procedure which meets the forester’s approval.
 Demonstrate harvest plan modifications to protect and enhance wildlife and fish habitats.
 Significant confirmation on harvest plans and discussions with BED foresters support the
 implementation of this policy.

E. Ensure Harvest Notifications include the pertinent information and protection of Deer Wintering
 Area, Wetlands and Habitats of Rare and Endangered species. When landowner goals require



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 7 of 14
McNeil LLC
 silvicultural manipulation for wildlife management purposes, guidance may be sought from the
 Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife or other qualified source as well as the publication ‘A
 Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Habitat Management for Vermont Woodlands by the Vermont
 Department of Fish and Wildlife.’
 Demonstrate cooperation between BED foresters and VT Fish and Wildlife biologists.
 Significant confirmation on harvest plans, visits to harvest sites, and discussions
 with BED foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

F. Protection of fisheries resources will be provided through the use of acceptable erosion and
 sedimentation control practices including the use of filter strips and protection of streamside
 shade. Harvesting contractors will be required to implement applicable procedures outlined in the
 publication Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in
 Vermont to the extent specified by Burlington Electric Department foresters.
 Ensure water quality through the implementation of AMPs on all harvests sites.
 Significant confirmation of harvest site inspections and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

G. BED foresters will seek guidance in protecting significant archeological sites.
 Ensure significant archaeological sites are not disturbed by BED harvesting practices.
 Significant confirmation from harvest site inspections and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

H. The development of management goals will involve consideration of the objectives of the
 landowner and alternatives available to him or her, the characteristics of the site and forest
 stand, and impacts on related resources (water quality, wildlife, scenic quality, and recreation).
 Demonstrate that Harvest Sites meet the above goals.
 Confirmation of harvest sites and inspection reports, and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

I. The landowner or land manager and/or the harvesting contractor will confer with a professional
 forester representing BED in developing a harvesting procedure which meets the forester’s
 approval. In all cases, harvesting will incorporate, to the extent reasonably possible, the
 protection of residual trees, minimization of waste and assurance of rapid and adequate
 regeneration. Every effort will be made to put harvested products to their most valuable use.
 Residual stand damage will be minimized on BED harvests, wood on harvests is efficiently
 utilized and silvicultural practices meet accepted standards to establish adequate regeneration.
 Confirmation of harvest sites, site inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 support the proper implementation of minimal post-harvest residual damage. Significant
 confirmation during harvest site inspections support observations of timber efficiently
 utilized to highest value markets. Confirmation during post-harvest inspections, harvest
 plan documentation, and discussions with BED foresters support the proper
 implementation of silvicultural practices.

J. Specific types of cutting will include but not be limited to Selection System, Seed Tree
 System, Shelterwood System, Clearcutting, Improvement Cut and Thinning.
 Demonstrate that all BED forestry (i.e., non-development/land conversion) harvests rely on a



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 8 of 14
McNeil LLC
 sound silvicultural system that is appropriate to the site.
 Confirmation of harvest sites, inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 support the proper implementation of this policy. The clearcutting system is not
 widely utilized on harvest plans. On a limited basis, BED foresters work with Vermont
 habitat biologists to prescribe small patch clearcuts for wildlife improvement. I
 visited two harvest sites that employed land clearing for conversion to agricultural
 uses.

K. Harvesting contractors are expected to abide by all applicable local, state, and federal
 regulations.
 BED requires and maintains proof of appropriate insurance from suppliers. BED requires
 suppliers to meet applicable transportation safety and load requirements. BED does not
 procure wood from contractors who have a record of timber theft or other property destruction
 or damage.
 Discussions with BED foresters support the implementation of this policy.


Afforestation Concerns
In addition to the afore-mentioned harvest policy standards, the BED RFP noted an objective in the scope
of work titled ‘Providing qualitative and quantitative assessment of afforestation/deforestation outcomes in
areas where wood is harvested for McNeil and the market factors that affect such outcomes.’ The data
from 2025 year-to-date timber harvesting notifications in New York and Vermont noted below (provided
by Betsy Lesnikoski).

 Agricultural
 Notified Plans Development Conversion
 % of % of
 Acres Acres Total Acres Total
 New York 7,762.9 198.4 2.6% 222.0 2.9%
 Vermont 11,768.6 152.6 1.3% 156.1 1.3%


Year-to-date 2025, Vermont has 2.6% and New York has 5.5% of harvest sites using clearing activity for
development and agricultural conversion. These activities are relatively minor and may or may not occur
without the McNeil market. The McNeil market does not rely on this activity as a major component of
wood residues. Most importantly, these sites are not permanently lost to timber production as natural
regenerated forests historically prevail as Vermont farms have a rich history of clearing land for
agriculture and subsequently letting it regrow naturally.

The vast majority of timber harvests are partial cuts where the natural regeneration process is the method
used to cultivate a new forest stand. Plantation management systems, where where land is cleared and
trees are planted on short rotations, are generally not employed in the northern forests of upstate New
York and Vermont.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 9 of 14
McNeil LLC
Recommendations For Improvement

Training, Advocacy and Reporting
a. Support logger training through Professional Loggers of the Northeast or another organization
 with resources to advocate, train and educate loggers on use of Vermont AMP’s and New York
 Best Management Practices.
b. Encourage annual workshops with a third-party organization to encourage Vermont loggers on
 effective use of AMP’s.
c. Regularly update BED education materials to assure the public understands the importance of BED’s
 leadership in protection of RTE species and habitat.
d. Encourage regional development of alternative forestry bioproducts facilities to create additional
 markets for low-grade wood residues – the Vermont forest is growing volume faster than
 current removals, which will become a long-term problem if not properly addressed. Healthy,
 well-managed forests are the goal to optimize forest carbon sequestration and storage.
e. Advocate for pragmatic improvements to Vermont’s ACT 250. The law has a good foundation,
 yet it needs to evolve and change with the demands of Vermont’s public and rural culture.
f. Support SLoCAMP (Supporting Loggers Compliance with AMP’s), a grant-funded cost-share
 program to support Vermont loggers in implementing initiative-taking water quality protection
 practices on their harvest sites. The program is funded by the Vermont Department of Forests,
 Parks and Recreation and administered by the Professional Logging Contractors of the
 Northeast.
g. Consider chain of custody processes to improve verification of chip supply and origination of
 wood residues.
h. Consider a trip ticket policy for all loads of timber or wood residues transported from the woods or mill
 to a wood using facility to ensure site-to-site or site-to-mill timber security.

Harvesting Policy
A review of the BED Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Operations in Vermont is one of the outcomes
in the RFP. The policy is a pragmatic document that covers a wide range of extremely important
aspects of harvest planning and implementation.
In my process of reviewing documents pertaining to BED’s policies, I reviewed the 2013 report by
Pricewaterhouse Coopers which used the 2010-2014 SFI standard to identify gaps in the BED
process of procuring wood residues for McNeil. Although there were many similar conclusions as
mine, I wanted to highlight more specific actions to improve clarity of the BED Harvesting Policy.

Recommendations To Improve BED’s Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping
Operations in Vermont
a. Improve the overall quality of the BED Harvesting Policy document using a graphic designer
 or publisher program to enhance readability and the professional appearance. The text of
 the document is technically clear and professional (other than minor improvements noted
 below); however, the appearance of the document could use some improvement.
b. Section 1 – Require annual review/education of Vermont AMP’s for all loggers in the BED
 system. The Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast could be a good resource to
 lead a training session.
c. Section 2a – Define refuse. Require all refuse be removed as soon as practicably possible,
 especially during winter months when snow and ice can prevent clean-up at season end. At a
 minimum, require weekly clean-up of refuse.


Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 10 of 14
McNeil LLC
d. Section 2c – Add revegetation of landings with grass or natural vegetation within one year.
e. Section 5b – Reword ‘every effort will be made to put harvested products to their most
 valuable use’ to ‘timber removed from the designated harvest plan will be utilized to the
 maximum possible value’.
f. Section 7 – Reword to state ‘BED foresters will encourage landowners to utilize a stumpage
 sale contract detailing harvest plan, stand prescriptions, and a list of markets with stumpage
 prices paid to the landowner’.


Other Observations Addressing Public Concerns
a. The public has a genuine interest in forest management and desires exemplary work from BED
 certified harvest plans. As stated earlier, the harvest plan documentation used by BED foresters
 sets a standard for non-public lands in the Northeast US. The detailed planning and collaboration
 with State of Vermont Natural Resource Managers is noteworthy, exemplary, and progressive.
b. The McNeil system receives wood residues from many sources. During my field visits, I observed
 no chipping of large diameter sawlogs or whole trees that could be sold to higher use roundwood
 markets. Loggers have no financial incentive to sell or ship timber that could be sold for a higher
 return.
c. Land in the Northeast is regularly cleared for farming, housing, or development, especially near
 farms and larger communities. Vermont has a rich history of balancing farming, sugarbush lands,
 timber management, and rural communities. Neighboring states admire this balance of public
 demands. Without a wood residue market, the residues from site conversions would be open
 burned, which would directly release carbon the atmosphere and avoid use as a power source.
d. Public comments from the June 24, 2025 TEUC meeting stated that 72% of wood produced in
 Vermont is burned. I cannot locate any public data that supports the statement. Timber produced
 in Vermont is sold to over 40 markets from sawlogs to pulpwood to firewood to wood residues.
 Historically, Vermonters burn wood to heat their homes and generate heat for their sugarbush
 operations – the use of wood for heat is a source of pride and a fabric of the rural society.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 11 of 14
McNeil LLC
Photos of Active Harvest Sites – Summer 2025 (by John Bryant)
 Photo 1: Sorting roundwood from limbed tops Photo 2: Processing firewood on the logging yard




 Photo 3: Piled tops from a winter job ready for chipping Photo 4: Old fashioned firewood processing on site




 Photo 5: Sorting roundwood from wood residues Photo 6: Large pile of tops prepared for chipping




  Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 12 of 14
 Photo 7: White Pine sawlogs ready for shipment Photo 8: Truck loaded with wood chips




Photo 9: High quality hardwood crop trees post-harvest Photo 10: Multiple wood products utilized for high value markets




 Photo 11: Swanton yard wood chip receiving station Photo 12: Tops and limbs piled for chipping




 Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 13 of 14
 Exhibits Reviewed for This Report
 a. RFP 014-25C – BED Request for Proposal – Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil.
 b. Vermont Acceptable Management Guidelines – Manual for Logging Professionals 2019.
 c. Burlington Electric Department – Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping Operations in
 Vermont (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 d. Burlington Electric Department – Making A Harvest Plan (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 e. Detailed lists of active 2024 and 2025 Vermont and New York harvest plans and maps under
 the McNeil certification system by BED Foresters (provided by Seth Clifford).
 f. Northern Woodlands article on Forest Carbon (summer 2025 edition).
 g. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC report on BED’s Biomass Fuel Procurement Assessment
 (dated June 2016).
 h. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC report on 2023 McNeil Economic Impact Analysis
 (dated June 2023).
 i. A Guide to Forest Carbon in the Northeast authored by Alexandra M. Kosiba, UVM 2024.
 j. McNeil Operation Certificate Permit dated September 14, 1981 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski)..
 k. McNeil Operation Certificate Amended Permit dated May 16, 1983 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 l. BED analysis of 2019 annual purchases compared to net growth (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 m. McNeil system volume delivery summary report for 2022 to 20245 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 n. Price Waterhouse Coopers repot on the BED McNeil Station – SFI Standard Gap Assessment
 report (dated April 29, 2013).
 o. Maine Woodland Owners article on Silviculture and Carbon Sequestration authored by Bob
 Seymour dated April 2021.
 p. A Landowners Guide – Wildlife Habitat Management for Lands in Vermont published by
 Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (dated 2014).
 q. Northern Woodlands magazine article on New Forest Bioproducts as A Conservation Tool
 (Summer 2025 edition).
 r. State of Vermont ACT 250 Program and History (from vermont.gov/act250-program website).
 s. TEUC forum discussion and notes from June 19, 2023 public meeting.
 t. TEUC forum notes from August 22, 2024 public meeting.
 u. TEUC meeting notes from June 24, 2025 public meeting.
 v. City of Burlington contract with K2QC Consulting LLC (dated May 2, 2025).
 w. K2QC Consulting LLC proposal for Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil (dated
 February 18, 2025).




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 14 of 14
Qualifications, Experience and Education – John Bryant
  a. Retired Northeast Region Manager and Co-owner – American Forest Management (national
 forestry consulting company) – responsible for client relations and leadership of twenty-eight
 employees in 2 office locations and 3 timber processing yards in Maine (October 2007 to
 December 2019).
  b. Owner – K2QC Consulting LLC since January 2020 (forest management, timber value assessment,
 logger business assessment, and organizational development work).
  c. 42 years’ experience as forester and land manager in Maine and New Hampshire for St. Regis Paper
 Company, Champion International Corporation, International Paper Company, and American Forest
 Management.
  d. Region Manager – Champion International Corporation, and International Paper from February
 2000 to September 2007 – responsible for management of company owned lands and leadership
 of thirty-five employees in 4 office locations in Maine.
  e. From 2005 to 2019, responsible for managing annual deliveries and quarterly negotiations for an
 annual fiber supply agreement on 1,100,00 acres of timberland between Verso Paper [and pre-
 successor mill owner International Paper] and landowner BBC Lands [and pre-successor
 landowner GMO Renewable Resources]. The annual fiber supply volumes totaled 800-000 tons
 in 2005 and were amended in later agreements due to mill requests, timber markets, and mill
 closures.
  f. Manager Land Transactions – Champion International Corporation (April 1996 to January 2000) –
 responsible for land sales and acquisitions in Maine and northern New Hampshire including lead
 negotiator for a 22,000-acre Nicatous Lake conservation easement between Robbins Lumber
 Company, Forest Society of Maine, State of Maine, and partner conservation organizations.
  g. Internal Consultant (part-time) – Champion International Corporation from 1990 to 2000 –
 working with management and work teams to improve team participation and improve
 company collaborative culture.
  h. Forester in various land management and silviculture positions at St. Regis Paper Company
 and Champion International Corporation from May 1977 to March 1996, including 8 years
 as a Field Forester.
  i. Maine Licensed Forester #931 (1982 to present).
  j. 1977 B.S. Forest Utilization degree from University of Maine, Orono.
  k. Advisory Committee Member, Scientific Forest Management Area, Baxter State Park (2014 to
 present).
  l. Co-Chair, FOR/Maine Executive Committee (2023 to 2025).
  m. Town of Holden Planning Board (1993 to 2014)
  n. President, Holden Land Trust – Holden, Maine (2022 to present).




 Respectfully submitted,

 John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC
 k2qcconsulting@gmail.com
 Maine Licensed Forester 931
 207-745-9955
 Holden, Maine 04429




 Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 15 of 14
 FY 2026
Financial Review
 August




 September 26, 2025
 Burlington Electric Department
 Financial Review

 FY 2026



Table of Contents:

● Financial Highlights 1-2


● Revenues and Expenses

 o KWH Sales – Total 3
 o Cooling/Heating Degree Days 4
 o KWH Sales – Residential & Commercial 5
 o Net Power Supply Costs 6-11
 o Operating & Maintenance Expense 12
 o Labor Overhead 13
 o Net Income 14


● Capital Spending 15 - 18


● Cash 19
 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS – BUDGET VS ACTUAL as of August FY26

 Full Yr CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE
  ($000) Budget Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance
 Sales to Customers 56,090 5,117  5,199 82 10,755  11,133 378
 Other Revenues 3,881 333 159 (174) 697 438 (258)
 Power Supply Revenues 7,631 3,000 0  (3,000) 3,000 0 (3,000)
  Total Operating Revenues 67,602 8,450  5,357  (3,093) 14,452  11,571 (2,880)
 Power Supply Expense (Net) 35,540 3,527  3,348 179 6,994 6,923 71
 Operating Expense 22,912 1,904  1,810 94 4,145 3,897 248
 Depreciation & Amortization 5,832 495 523 (28) 991 1,036 (45)
 Taxes 3,615 319 292 27 627 583 44
  Sub-Total Expenses 67,899 6,245  5,973 272 12,757  12,439 318
  Operating Income (298) 2,205 (616) (2,821) 1,695 (867) (2,562)
  Other Income & Deductions 6,855 333 540 206 823 996 173
  Interest Expense 3,204 259 270 (11) 518 527 (9)
  Net Income (Loss) 3,354 2,280 (346) (2,626) 2,001 (398) (2,400)


Year-to-Date Results:
  Sales to Customers up $378,000 (3.5%). Residential Sales up $186,300 and Non-Residential Sales up
 $184,000.

  Other Revenues down $258,000 (37%)
 a. DSM billable (customer driven).


  Power Supply Revenues down $3,000,000; timing of REC deliveries
 a. McNeil REC revenue of $0 compared to a budget of $1,786,000.
 b. Wind REC revenue of $0 compared to a budget of $1,101,000.
 c. Hydro REC revenue of $0 compared to a budget of $113,000.

  Power Supply Expenses (Net) down $71,000 (1%)
 a. Fuel down $177,000.
 b. Purchased Power down $212,000.
 c. Transmission up $319,000.

  Operating Expenses down $248,000 (6%)
 a. Timing: various items were less than budget including outside services ($218,800), materials & supplies
 ($62,300), and RPS Compliance ($71,800); offset by items higher than budget including A&G clearing
 $99,800 and maintenance contracts, $52,200.


  Taxes down $44,200, (7%)
 a. Actual Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) is $162,300 lower than budget assumption for the year.
 b. Actual Winooski One Property Tax is $29,700 lower than budget assumption for the year.


  Other Income & Deductions up $173,000 (21%)
 a. Timing; favorable gain/loss on disposition of plant, $160,000.
 b. Timing; favorable customer contribution /grant proceeds $82,000.
 c. Offset by timing of jobbing ($104,000).



 1
 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS – BUDGET VS ACTUAL as of August FY26




 Capital Spending – August YTD
 ($000s)
 Plant Type Full Yr. Budget Budget Actual % Spent
 Production $4,481 $793 $54 1%
 Other 868 152 29 3%
 Transmission 222 0 0 0%
 Distribution 6,419 1,049 520 8%
 General 3,228 959 94 3%

 Total $15,218 $2,951 $698 5%

(1) Production – Timing; projects at W1 are under budget including FERC Relicensing ($238,100)
 and embankment repair ($403,600). Also, budget assumed $50,000 for replacement rail cars in
 July vs $0.

(2) Distribution – Transformers under budget due to availability ($367,100).

(3) General – Timing; budget includes IT Forward projects of $351,400 vs actual of $74,900. Also,
 timing of Forklift EV, $137,700. RFP is out for proposal.



 As of August 31, 2025
 Operating Cash and Investments
 Operating Funds $6,198,620
 Operating Fund – CD’s $985,940
 CD/Money Market - GOB $4,873,840
 Total Operating Cash $12,058,400




 Credit Rating Factors – August 2025
 3 Year
 "A" "Baa" Current Average
 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.25 1.25  5.11 4.27
 Adjusted Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.50 1.10  1.05 1.25
 Cash Coverage - Days Cash on Hand 90 30
 - With $10M Line of Credit 142 133
 - Without Line of Credit 81




 2
 Burlington Electric Department
 Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026



 Total Sales to Customers - KWH
 Monthly


 35,000




 30,000




  KWH (000)
 25,000




 20,000
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget 32,855 30,319 26,899 25,256 24,532 27,238 28,518 25,711 26,620 24,405 24,403 25,950
 Actual 32,740 29,621




 KWH Sales to Customers (YTD)
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Budget 32,855 63,173 90,073 115,329 139,861 167,098 195,617 221,328 247,949 272,354 296,757 322,708
 Actual 32,740 62,361




 3
 FY 2026
 Cooling Degree Days (CDD)
 350

 300

 250

 200

 150

 100

 50

 0
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget CDD 278 222 86 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 53 138
 Actual CDD 306 190



 Heating Degree Days (HDD)
 1,400

 1,200

 1,000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget HDD 2 7 96 384 769 1,066 1,307 1,152 968 571 213 44
 Actual HDD 1 19

 Average Monthly Temperature
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Budget 74 72 65 53 39 30 23 24 34 46 60 68
Actual 75 70

CDD/HDD definition per National Weather Service : Degree days are based on the
assumption that when the outside temperature is 65°F, we don't need heating or cooling to be
comfortable. Degree days are the difference between the daily temperature mean (high
temperature plus low temperature divided by two) and 65°F. If the temperature mean is above
65°F, we subtract 65 from the mean and the result is Cooling Degree Days. If the temperature
mean is below 65°F, we subtract the mean from 65 and the result is Heating Degree Days.



 4
 Burlington Electric Department
 Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026
 KWH Sales


 Residential Customers


 10,000


 9,000




 KWH (000)
 8,000


 7,000


 6,000


 5,000
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget 9,514 8,313 6,733 6,475 6,932 8,616 9,028 7,941 7,858 6,569 5,990 6,737
 Actual 9,524 8,228




 Commercial & Industrial Customers


 25,000


 22,500


 20,000


 KWH (000) 17,500


 15,000


 12,500
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget 23,340 22,006 20,166 18,780 17,601 18,622 19,490 17,770 18,762 17,837 18,413 19,213
 Actual 23,216 21,392




Street Lighting is included with Commercial & Industrial Customers.




 5
 Net Power Supply Costs
 August - FY 2026
 ($000)
 Current Month Year-to-Date
 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance
Expenses:
 Fuel (p. 7) $1,012 $1,070 ($59) (1) $2,213 $2,036 $177 (1)
 Purchased Power (p.11) 1,477 1,253 224 (2) 2,905 2,693 212 (2)
 Purchased Power Adjustment (p 11) 43 43 (0) 87 87 (0)
 Transmission Fees - ISO 917 895 22 (3) 1,689 1,828 (139) (3)
 Transmission Fees - Velco 7 22 (15) (4) (34) 151 (185) (4)
 Transmission Fees - Other 71 66 5 133 128 5
Total Expenses 3,526 3,349 177 6,992 6,922 70

Revenues:
 Renewable Energy Certificates - McNeil 1,786 0 (1,786) (5) 1,786 0 (1,786) (5)
 Renewable Energy Certificates - Wind 1,101 0 (1,101) (5) 1,101 0 (1,101) (5)
 Renewable Energy Certificates - Hydro 113 0 (113) (5) 113 0 (113) (5)
 Renewable Energy Certificates - Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues 3,000 0 (3,000) (5) 3,000 0 (3,000) (5)

Net Power Supply Costs $525 $3,349 ($2,823) $3,992 $6,922 ($2,931)

Load (MWh) 32,140 30,458 (1,682) 65,605 64,138 (1,467)
$/MWh $16.35 $109.95 $93.60 $60.85 $107.93 $47.08

Current Month:
(1) See detail on page 7.
(2) See detail on page 11.
(3) ISO-NE Peak Load under Budget.
(4) VELCO Common charges over Budget.
(5) Timing of REC deliveries.

YTD:
(1) See detail on page 7.
(2) See detail on page 11.
(3) ISO-NE Peak Load over Budget.
(4) VELCO Common charges over Budget.
(5) Timing of REC deliveries.




 6
 Net Power Supply Costs
 August - FY 2026

 ($000)
 Current Month Year-to-Date
 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance
FUEL:

McNeil 990 1,057 (66) (1) 2,120 1,984 136 (1)

Gas Turbine 21 14 7 (2) 93 52 41 (2)

Total Fuel 1,012 1,070 (59) 2,213 2,036 177




Current Month:
(1) McNeil production 7% over Budget. Wood Price Per Ton 5% under Budget. (p. 8)
(2) GT production (34 MWh) 33% under Budget.

YTD:
(1) McNeil production 5% under Budget. Wood Price Per Ton 5% under Budget. (p. 8)
(2) GT production (132 MWh) 27% over Budget. Budget includes $50,000 in July for R99 testing.




 7
 Burlington Electric Department
 McNeil Plant - MWH Production (50%)
 FY 2026
25,000




20,000




15,000




10,000




  5,000




 0
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Budget 15,353 13,749 6,000 6,573 11,538 16,538 17,347 15,544 12,227 4,199 3,875 8,431
Actual 13,005 14,717
Maximum 18,600 18,600 18,000 18,600 18,000 18,600 18,600 16,800 18,600 18,000 18,600 18,000




 8
 Burlington Electric Department
 Winooski One - MWH Production
 FY 2026
  8,000

  7,000

  6,000

  5,000

  4,000

  3,000

  2,000

  1,000

 0

 (1,000)
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Budget 2,650 1,246 832 1,541 1,942 3,216 2,531 1,587 2,032 4,503 3,575 3,643
Actual 468 (13)
Maximum 5,506 5,506 5,328 5,506 5,328 5,506 5,506 4,973 5,506 5,328 5,506 5,328




 9
 Burlington Electric Depatment
 Fiscal Year 2026


 Woodchips Price Per Ton
 Monthly Variance


 30%
 25%
 20%
 15%
 10%
 5%
 $/Ton
 0%
 -5%
 -10%
 -15%
 -20%
 -25%
 -30%
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Actual -5% -5%




 Woodchips Price Per Ton
 Year-to-Date Variance


 30%
 25%
 20%
 15%
 10%
 5%
 $/Ton
 0%
 -5%
 -10%
 -15%
 -20%
 -25%
 -30%
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Actual -5% -5%




* Wood only. Does not include other costs.




 10
 Net Power Supply Costs
 August - FY 2026
 ($000)
 Current Month Year-to-Date
 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance

PURCHASED POWER:

Non-Energy (capacity) 95 68 27 190 (5) 195 (1)

Energy:
  Georgia Mountain Wind 226 185 41 (1) 431 379 52 (2)
  Hancock Wind 130 112 18 (2) 260 252 9 (3)
  VT Wind 119 83 37 (3) 240 193 47 (4)
  Hydro Quebec 300 300 (0) 600 600 (0)
  In City Solar Generators 100 107 (7) 215 216 (1)
  NYPA 6 5 1 13 12 1
  ISO Exchange 291 327 (36) (4) 499 964 (466) (5)
  ISO Exchange Adjustment 43 43 (0) (**) 87 87 (0) (**)
  FirstLight 122 22 100 (5) 300 122 178 (6)
  Velco Exchange 0 (0) 0 0 (1) 1
Total Energy 1,339 1,185 154 2,643 2,823 (179)

Ancillary Charges 19 (35) 54 (6) 24 (192) 216 (7)

VT RES Tier 1 Compliance Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0
Renewable Energy Credit Purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous-Other 67 78 (12) 133 154 (20)

Total Purchased Power Expense 1,520 1,296 224 2,992 2,779 212

Special Note (**)
Adjustment to reduce expense and create regulatory asset by amount of ISO Exchange excess winter energy revenue shortfall ($4,162,233)
and record one-eighth ($520,279) as amortization in FY24.

Current Month:
(1) Production 18% under Budget.
(2) Production 14% under Budget.
(3) Production 31% under Budget.
(4) Production (Winooski One (101%), FirstLight (82%), and Wind (21%)) under Budget.
(5) Production 82% under Budget.
(6) Reserve revenues over Budget.

YTD:
(1) Includes credit from Pay for Performance event.
(2) Production 12% under Budget.
(3) Production 3% under Budget.
(4) Production 20% under Budget.
(5) Production (McNeil (5%), Winooski One (88%), FirstLight (59%), and Wind (12%)) under Budget.
(6) Production 59% under Budget.
(7) Reserve revenues over Budget.
 11
Burlington Electric Department
Operating and Maintenance Expense by Spending Category
FY 2026 - August YTD
 %
 Budget Actual Variance Variance *
Labor-Regular 1,534,492 1,599,735 (65,243) 4% a
Labor-Overtime 78,707 83,544 (4,837) 6%
Labor-Temporary 13,200 1,728 11,472 87% b
Labor-Overhead 664,309 673,361 (9,052) 1% c
Outside Services 657,474 438,711 218,763 33% d
DSM (rebates & outside services) 346,000 258,277 87,723 25% e
Materials & Supplies 207,727 145,392 62,335 30% f
Insurance 131,184 128,467 2,717 2%
A & G Clearing (181,423) (81,634) (99,789) 55% g
Other - RES Tier 3 Compliance 194,946 123,135 71,811 37%
Other 499,373 526,964 (27,591) 6% h

 Operating & Maintenance Expense 4,145,987 3,897,680 248,307 6%



(a) Labor is impacted by the amount of capital (vs. expense) work.


(b) Temporary help at McNeil Plant.

(c) See page 13.

(d) Timing; budget assumed GT R99 Testing in July, $171,000.


(e) Projects are driven almost entirely by customer decisions. The budget is based on information on specific
projects or seasonal variations; otherwise the amount is spread evenly across the year.

(f) Timing of various areas.

(g) The credit for A&G ("Admin and General Expenses") charged to Capital projects was less than planned.


(h) Various areas are higher than budget including Maintenance Contracts, $52,200, Rentals & Leases, $33,600
and Uncollectible Accounts, $30,500; offset by areas lower than budget including Transportation Clearing
($37,400), Dues & Fees ($11,700), Utilities $9,800 and Training ($8,700).




 12
 Burlington Electric Department
 Budget vs Actual Spending Analysis
 FY 2026 - August YTD

 (000's)
Labor - Overhead Budget Actual Variance %
 Pension $308 $303 $5 2% (a)
 Medical Insurance 406 383 23 6% (b)
 Social Security Taxes 187 179 8 4% (c)
 Workers Compensation Ins. 74 69 4 6% (b)
 Dental Insurance 16 15 1 4% (b)
 Life Insurance 4 3 1 15% (b)
 Childcare Contribution Tax 11 9 1 14% (d)
 $1,005 $962 $42 4%



Rates Table: Budget

Pension (a) 12.58%

Social Security (c) 7.65%

Childcare Payroll Tax 0.44%



(a) Function of labor cost.

Includes pension per City, $1,760,100 and amortization of IBEW Pension back payment,
$87,041.

(b) Budget provided by the City during budget development.

(d) New tax as of July 1, 2024 is 0.44% of wages.




 13
 Net Income
 FY 2026 - August ($000)

 Current Month Year - To - Date
 Ref Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues
 Sales to Customers p.3 5,117 5,199 82 10,755 11,133 378
 Other Revenues 333 159 (174) (a) 697 438 (258) (a)
 Power Supply Revenues p.6 3,000 0 (3,000) 3,000 0 (3,000)
 Total Operating Revenues 8,450 5,357 (3,093) 14,452 11,571 (2,880)

Operating Expenses
 Fuel p.6 1,012 1,070 (58) 2,213 2,036 177
 Purchased Power p.6 1,520 1,296 224 2,992 2,780 212
 Transmission p.6 994 982 12 1,788 2,107 (319)
 Operating and Maintenance p.12 1,904 1,810 94 4,145 3,897 248
 Depreciation & Amortization 495 523 (28) 991 1,036 (45)
 Revenue Taxes 70 57 13 130 116 13
 Property Taxes Winooski One 27 25 2 (b) 55 50 5 (b)
 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 221 210 11 (c) 443 417 26 (c)
 Total Operating Expenses 6,244 5,973 271 12,756 12,439 317

Other Income and Deductions
 Interest/Investment Income 42 121 80 73 149 76
 Dividends 373 373 0 745 745 0
 Customer Contributions/Grant Proceeds 81 114 33 (d) 157 238 82 (d)
 Gain/(Loss) on Disp of Plant (160) 0 160 (160) 0 160
 Other (2) (69) (67) (e) 9 (136) (145) (e)
 Total Other Income & Deductions 333 540 206 823 996 173

Interest Expense 259 270 (11) 518 527 (9)

Net Income 2,280 (346) (2,626) 2,001 (398) (2,400)

Current Month:
(a) Energy Efficiency Program cost reimbursement was lower than planned, $170,100.
(b) Actual Winooski One tax bill is lower than budget assumption by $29,700 for the year.
(c) Actual Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) is lower than budget assumption by $162,300 for the year.
(d) Budget includes customer contributions for Champlain Pkwy ($51,000). Also, grant income for "Building Giants" (Federal
 50% share) ($23,400) and Distributed Energy Resources Management ($1,500). Actual includes customer contribution for
 UG billable ($69,000) and various grant income.
(f) Unrealized loss on investment ($65,100).

Year - To - Date:
(a) Energy Efficiency Program cost reimbursement was lower than planned, $248,300.
(b) Actual Winooski One tax bill is lower than budget assumption by $29,700 for the year.
(c) Actual Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) is lower than budget assumption by $162,300 for the year.
(d) Budget includes customer contributions for Champlain Pkwy ($102,100). Also, grant income for "Building Giants" (Federal
 50% share) ($46,800) and Distributed Energy Resources Management ($3,500). Actual includes customer contribution for
 Champlain Parkway ($69,000), UG billable ($69,000) and various grant income.
(f) Timing of jobbing unfavorable, ($104,000) and unrealized loss on investment ($40,500).




 14
 Burlington Electric Department
 Capital Projects - FY26

 $000
 Full Year August
 Budget Budget Actual Variance
McNeil (BED 50% Share)
Analyzer Upgrades for Chemical Treatment 9 0
Ash Silo Pug Mill/Auger Upgrade (312) 13 0
Augers Replaced 30 0
Catalyst Replacement for Nox System (312) 150 2 (2)
CEMS Server Upgrade (312) 15 0
Cooling Tower Timber Replacement 84 0 (0)
Demineralization Resin 20 0
Disk Screen 15 0
ESP Mechanical Field Rebuild 300 0
Farmhouse Improvements (311) 9 0
Freight Elevator Geared Equipment and Controls (311) 180 0
IT Forward - FIS Replacement (McNeil) 37 0
IT Forward - Work & Asset Management (McNeil) 22 0
Live Bottom Rebuild 139 1 1 0
McNeil Relay Engineering Study (315) 134 13 1 13
Network Infrastructure - McNeil Switches 7 7 7
Opacity Replacement (312) 20 0
Reclaimer Rebuild 12 (12) (a)
Replacement Rail Cars (312) 50 50 50
Routine Station Improvements 1 188 38 1 37
Safety Valve Replacements (312) 25 6 6
Shredder Upgrade (312) 100 0
Station Tools & Tool Boxes (312) 8 1 2 (1)
Well New (311) 185 0
Woodchip Dryer (1 of 3) (312) 626 1 (1)
Other 17 6 3 2 (b)
 Total McNeil Plant 2,380 122 23 99

(a) Prior year project.
(b) Budget includes appliances, energy efficiency upgrades, furniture, perimeter fence, replacement scale at Swanton,
rigging equipment and switchgear & station upgrades.
Hydro Production 1,926 659 6 653 (a)

(a) Timing; FERC Relicensing, $238,000 and Embankment Repair & Dam Plate Torque, $403,600.

Gas Turbine 175 12 26 (13) (a)

(a) Budget assumes Rigging Equipment & Station Improvements. Actual includes prior year GT Roof Replacement,
$2,800 and GT Server Upgrade, $22,800.




 15
 Burlington Electric Department
 Capital Projects - FY26

 $000
 Full Year August
 Budget Budget Actual Variance
Other
Direct Current Fast Chargers (Level 3) 159 0 2 (2)
Distributed Energy Resources 34 7 7
Distributed Energy Resources Management System 244 0 0
EV Charger Installations (Level 2) 264 0 2 (2)
EV Chargers/Staging Plan 0 0 25 (25) (a)
P&P R&D 26 5 5
585 Fleet EV Chargers 115 115 115
585 Fleet EV Charging Design Study 25 25 25
 Total Other 868 152 29 123

(a) Prior year project #C20255.
Transmission Plant
VT Transco Investment 222 0 0 0
 Total Transmission Plant 222 0 0 0

Distribution Plant-General

Aerial
Deforest Road Rebuild 493 247 4 243
Dunder Road Rebuild 0 22 (22) (a)
NZE Transfer Load Between 1L1 to L14 210 0
Rebuild 1L4 from Poles P838 to P2795 173 0
Rebuild Howard Street Pole P655 to P836 41 0 (0)
Rebuild Plattsburgh Ave Poles P3762 to P3752 40 0 (0)
Rebuild St Paul Street Pole P1004 to P1011 27 1 (1)
Rebuild Wells Street Pole P191 to P183 25 1 (1)
Replace Condemned Poles 210 1 (1)
South Cove Rd East Rebuild 80 (80) (a)
South Cove Road West Rebuild 94 (94) (a)
 Total Aerial 1,220 247 204 43

(a) Prior year project.

Underground
Battery Street Replacement 2 (2)
Replace UG to UVM Aiken Center 18 18 18
Replace 2L3 from UH303 to 929S 698 0
Rebuild UG St. Paul Street (Bank St to Cherry St) 358 0
 Total Underground 1,073 18 2 16




 16
 Burlington Electric Department
 Capital Projects - FY26

 $000
 Full Year August
 Budget Budget Actual Variance
Customer Driven/City Projects
Champlain Parkway-Billable 400 120 75 45
Champlain Parkway (CAFC) (340) (102) (69) (33)
City Place Streetlighting 195 0
City Place Streetlighting (CAFC) (104) 0
Great Street-Main Street 621 7 (7)
Great Street-Main Street (CAFC) (557) 0
Winooski Bridge Rebuild 34 0
Winooski Bridge Rebuild (CAFC) (34) 0
 Total Underground 215 18 13 5

Other
Communication Equipment Emergency Repair 16 0
Distribution Transformers-Purchase 1,445 434 67 367
Distribution Transformers-Install 11 2 6 (4)
Fiber Optical Time Domain Reflectometer Unit (OTDR) 12 12 12
Lake Street Battery Bank Replacement 41 0
Replace Failed 920S/921S/922S Switch 63 0
SCADA ADMS Upgrade (Phases 3/4) 1,204 241 149 92
SCADA Field Equipment Replacement 64 0
SCADA Servers PC's and Monitors 15 (15)
Upgrade ArcFM to GIS Pro 318 0
USAmp Upgrade 7 7 7
Other 9 (9)
 Total Other 3,181 696 245 451

 Total Distribution Plant-General 5,689 979 464 515

Distribution Plant - Blanket
Aerial 174 3 22 (19)
Aerial (CAFC) (70) (1) (7) 5
Underground 332 25 103 (78)
Underground (CAFC) (143) (3) (87) 84
Meters 133 41 6 35
Lighting 217 5 10 (4)
Tools & Equipment - Distribution/Technicians 40 9 (9)
Replaces Failed SCADA Field Equipment 12 0 (0)
Substation Maintenance 18 0
Substation Camera Replacement 15 0
 Total Distribution Plant - Blanket 729 70 57 14

 Total Distribution Plant 6,419 1,049 520 529




 17
 Burlington Electric Department
 Capital Projects - FY26

 $000
 Full Year August
 Budget Budget Actual Variance
General Plant
Computer Equipment/Software 2,724 596 79 517 (a)
Vehicle Replacement 309 309 309
Buildings & Grounds 179 35 15 20 (b)
Gas Detectors 6 6 6
AED Purchase 11 11 11
 Total General Plant 3,228 956 94 862

(a) Budget includes IT Forward, $166,650 vs actual of $32,670. Other various projects include Internet Firewall.
(b) Budget includes Meter Shop renovation (HVAC) $35,000. Actual includes new SCADA Room, $9,200 from prior
year.

 Sub-Total Plant $15,218 $2,951 $698 $2,253

 Add: CAFC* reclass to "Other Income" 1,247 106 163 (56)

Total Plant $16,465 $3,057 $860 $2,197

* Customer Advances (Contributions) for Construction.




 18
 Operating Cash - FY 2026
 Monthly Ending Balance
 16,000

 14,000

 12,000

 10,000

$000 8,000

 6,000

 4,000

 2,000

 0
 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
 Budget 11,796 12,786 13,998 13,397 12,763 12,585 13,665 14,922 13,431 12,560 14,123 13,221
 Actual 11,713 12,058




 19
 BED 2025-2026
 Strategic Direction Dashboard



 Sept 2025 Aug 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February January 2023 Yearly 2022 Yearly 2021 Yearly 2020 Yearly 2019 Yearly
 Target Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals  2025 Actuals 2025 Actuals 2024 Yearly Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Engage Customers and Community
Call answer time 75% within 20 seconds 75% 76% 78% 78% 69% 61% 86% 90% 90% 86% avg 81% avg 82% avg 82% avg 82% avg 81%
Delinquent accounts >$500 0 313 262 276 248 242 246 323 287 251 avg 223 avg 168 avg 188 avg 529 avg 201
Disconnects for non-payment 0 36 34 22 2 31 153 10 1 1 308 224 12 0 45
Energy Assistance Program Customers (program lifetime) NA 905 898 887 881 871 869 862 858 852 843 234
Energy Assistance Program Customers (currently enrolled) 300 784 787 781 776 788 776 776 776 774 770 219
# of residential weatherization completions 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 11 5 5 3 11
Weatherization completions in rental properties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 6 0 0 TBD
# or % of homes or SF weatherized TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD 0
# of commercial building with improved thermal envelopes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 4 5 5 0
Total annual mWh saved via the EE programs (annual goal) 4,032 1,414 1,391 1,031 1,003 934 904 877 84 61 1116 2,940 4053 3057
Total residential annual mWh saved via the EE programs (cumulative for year) 724 187 166 142 128 68 64 51 35 28 333 494 862 917
Total commercial sector annual mWh saved via the EE programs (cumulative for year) 3,308 1,227 1,225 889 875 866 840 828 49 33 783 2,447 3191
 2140

% of EEU charge from LMI customers spent on EE services for LMI customers
 $ 297,026 $ 236,194 $ 233,861 $ 215,682 $ 204,228 $ 200,971 $ 195,750 $ 186,013 $ 178,052 $ 167,552 $ 155,814 $ 504,942 $ 335,234 TBD TBD TBD
(cumulative for 2024- 2026 3-year EEU performance period)
# of customers enrolled in DtP mailing list TBD 852 852 844 826 816 NA NA NA NA 812 800 738 689 698 523
# of large customers participating in DtP 12 12 12 12 12 NA NA NA NA 12 12 11
# of pageviews, overall website-wide 23,312 20,567 22,866 21,052 28,406 21,747 19,047 18,341 23,653
# of unique website homepage views 4,551 4,181 4,867 4,621 5,046 4,617 4,251 3,804 4,739
Strengthen Reliability
SAIFI (AVG interruptions/customer) (annual target) < 2.1 0.03 0.0 0.04 0.003 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.07 1.63 0.56 1.05 0.17 1.48 1.01
CAIDI (AVG time in hrs to restore service) (annual target) < 1.2 2.05 2.13 0.62 1.09 1.16 2.39 1.94 1.72 0.44 0.94 0.67 1.49 0.55 0.75
Distribution System Unplanned Outages (annual target) 82 1 2 10 6 2 6 4 5 3 69 39 61 44 90 98
McNeil Forced Outages 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 10 5 14 5 21 TBD
W1H Forced Outages 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 6 9 2 TBD
GT Forced Outages 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 9 6 2 3 TBD
Invest in Our People, Processes, and Technology
Avg. # of days to fill positions under recruitment 120 323 366 311 282 281 217 317 257 232 253 219 100 68 179
# of budgeted positions vacant 0 8 9 10 11 10 10 9 11 11 avg 12 avg 12 avg 9 avg 9 6 NA
 BED 2025-2026
 Strategic Direction Dashboard



 Sept 2025 Aug 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February January 2023 Yearly 2022 Yearly 2021 Yearly 2020 Yearly 2019 Yearly
 Target Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals  2025 Actuals 2025 Actuals 2024 Yearly Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Innovate to Reach Net Zero Energy
Tier 3 Program
# of residential heat pump installs 13 13 20 20 0 10 18 11 31 176 186 255 315 203 10
# of commercial heat pump installs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 4 13 0
# of residential hot water heat pump installs 0 1 0 3 0 5 1 2 5 28 31 26 14 6 4
# of commercial hot water heat pump installs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heat pump rebates 13 19 22 20 6 10 18 11 31 185 206 271 328 212 0
Heat pump hot water heater rebates 0 1 0 3 0 5 1 2 5 28 47 18 15 3 0
LMI heat pump rebates 4 6 2 4 6 0 1 0 0 35 21 43 28 6 4
Heat pump technology installs in rental properties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 10 14 9 TBD
LMI heat pump hot water heater rebates 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 1 2 0 1
EV rebates - new 15 10 3 9 16 11 10 6 18 125 103 53 67 14 36
EV rebates - pre-owned 5 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 23 16 18 7 8 2
 See NZE
LMI EV rebates 3 2 2 2 4 1 4 2 5 50 26 9 11 7 7
 Roadmap
PHEV rebates - new 4 5 2 3 0 2 4 3 7 44 25 27 41 10 17
 Goals below
PHEV rebates - preowned 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 5 8 6 12 6 5 3
LMI PHEV rebates 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 5 15 13 6 2
Public EV chargers in BTV (total) 41 ports 41 ports 41 ports 41 ports 41 ports 41 ports 41 ports 40 ports 40 ports 40 ports 32 ports 30 ports 27 ports 27 ports 14
Public EV charger energy dispensed (kWh) 40,500 44,400 40,400 36,700 36,700 39,100 38,500 36,400 40800 355500 244,300 151,360 86,570 35,690 78,000
Home EV charging station rebates 0 17 6 3 5 13 8 5 18 82 72 70 32 20 12
EV charging rate customers (total) 410 399 394 389 382 379 364 354 351 347 246 157 40 40 28
Level 2 charger rebates 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 10 11 10 0 1
Level 1 charger rebates 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1 0
E-bike rebates 15 29 24 36 32 39 22 1 27 169 147 152 88 36 65
E-mower rebates 6 3 8 31 25 10 1 0 2 109 135 159 154 95 142
E-forklift rebates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
MWE of Tier 3 measures installed 3,407 2,434 21,135 4,409 1,040 1,400 1,788 1,139 1,977 26,120 22,374 22,837 23,763 35,112 3,342
% Tier 3 obligation met with program measures 100% 160% 146% 136% 49% 30% 26% 20% 13% 8% 122% 117% 131% 159% 283% 31%
Net Zero Energy Roadmap Goals
# of solar net metering projects installed 4 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 13 32 33 29 24 33
No. of homes receiving NZE Home Roadmaps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 7 10 7
Residential heat pumps for space heating (no. of homes) 2023: 8615 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,320, 18% of goal 1,952 1,749 1,448 1,112 925
Commercial heat pumps for space heating (1000 SF floor space served) 2023: 5397 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 487, 7% of goal 431 411 405 374 374
Residential heat pumps for water heating (no. of homes) 2023: 4365 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 344, 4% of goal 289 243 224 208 203
Commercial heat pumps for water heating (1000 SF floor space served) 2023: 1019 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6, 0.2% of goal 0 0 0 0 -
EV registrations in BTV (light-duty) 2023: 2294 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,285, 23% of goal 829 699 549 361 296
Greenhouse gas emissions (1000 metric tons CO2) 2023: 150 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 174, 55% above target 179 193 188 185 214
Fossil fuel consumption (billion BTU) 2023: 2418 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,964, 68% above target 3,044 3,319 3,169 3,185 3,660
 BED 2025-2026
 Strategic Direction Dashboard



 Sept 2025 Aug 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February January 2023 Yearly 2022 Yearly 2021 Yearly 2020 Yearly 2019 Yearly
 Target Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals  2025 Actuals 2025 Actuals 2024 Yearly Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Demand Response
# of Defeat the Peak events called 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 5 3 4
Average kW savings per DtP event NA NA NA 413 NA NA NA NA NA 342 372 463 419.5 261 242
Manage Budget and Risks Responsibly
Safety & Environmental
No. of workers' compensation/accidents per month 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 8 16 4 8
Total Paid losses for workers’ compensation accidents (for the month) annual $8,210 $11,091 $7,121 $21,245 $13,204 $10,248 $3,018 $5,489 $66,100 $272,353 $98,393 $ 145,102 $ 93,612 $ 165,402 $38,288
Lost Time Incident Rate (days/year) (Dec numbers reflect annual results) <= 3.5 annual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.99 2.0 1.99 0.0 0.93 0.89
Lost Time Severity Rate (days/year) (Dec numbers reflect annual results) <= 71 annual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.90 107.4 112.63 0.0 41.71 78.2
Lost work days per month 0 0 0 0 11 16 0 0 0 0 avg 10 avg 12 avg 9 0.0 45
NOx reporting levels to EPA (Quarterly) (lbs/mmbtu) <0.075 0.068 0.066 0.067 0.068 0.069 0.091 0.068 0.069 0.068 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07
# of reported spills, waste water incidents (monthly) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 4 4
Phosphorus levels to DEC in lbs (monthly/yearly total) <0.8/37 0.157/1.235 0.172/1.152 0.038/1.053 0.04/1.063 0.013/1.024 0.181/2.082 0.174/1.979 0.165/1.986 0.153/1.965 1.87 0.705 0.688 2.028 1.169
# of new power outage claims reported (monthly) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 5 7 4
# of new auto/property/other liability claims reported (monthly) 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 4 24 36 27 18 27
Purchasing & Facilities
# of Purchase Orders for Inventory (Target: avg for winter months) 42 81 67 108 41 78 67 86 72 51 738 541 636 644 593
$ value of Purchase Orders for Inv. (Target: avg dollars spent during winter) $78,000 $889,830 $493,359 $1,128,775 $140,202 $325,805 $401,355 $973,263 $919,825 $142,579 $ 6,613,883 $2,481,531 $ 4,861,023 $ 3,278,620 975,531
# of stock issued for Inventory (Target: avg during winter months) 320 1000 731 641 732 563 707 730 510 631 7,207 6,777 6,187 4,402 4,545
$ value of stock issued for Inventory (Target: avg. during winter) $ 65,000 $ 94,464 $ 164,571 $ 66,137 $ 359,158 $ 134,027 $ 190,684 $ 151,857 $ 122,341 $ 66,331 $ 2,352,360 $ 1,925,781 $ 2,200,233 855,456 1,086,478
# of posters pulled from poles monthly (Target: goal to remove each month) 58 316 125 64 0 121 0 0 0 40 351 592 900 2,728 627
# of Spark Space and Auditorium setup/breakdowns monthly (Target: Covid impact) 3 17 13 14 11 16 13 19 16 15 199 207 132 88 87
Finance
Debt service coverage ratio (avg of previous 12-months) 1.25 5.11 4.92 TBD 4.91 5.47 5.08 5.14 4.95 4.10 FY24 3.81 FY23 4.61 FY22  4.26 FY21 3.77 FY20 3.56 FY19
Adjusted debt service coverage ratio (avg of previous 12-months) 1.5 1.05 1.24 TBD 1.26 1.44 1.32 1.34 1.29 1.25 FY24 1.29 FY23 1.22 FY22  1.08 FY21 0.93 FY20 0.90 FY19
Days unrestricted cash on hand (incl line of credit) >90 142 141 TBD 144 137 152 156 153 146 FY24 93 FY23 120 FY22 121 FY21 120 FY20 109 FY19
Arrearages >60 days $ 616,490 $568,448 $561,164 $ 558,755 $ 514,677 $ 486,445 $ 493,414 $ 484,303 $ 480,633 $ 470,940 $ 392,196 $ 408,903 $ 1,087,769 $ 749,054
Regulatory
Open PUC dockets 29
Open PUC dockets with deadlines in next 3 months 12
Power Supply
McNeil generation (MWH) (100%) per budget 22,687 29,433 26,010 18,513 13,684 552 10,132 25,714 32,680 197,044 184,798 228,981 273,355 192,696
McNeil availability factor 100% 73% 87% 76% 61% 67% 2% 29% 81% 100% 66% 84% 67% 80%
McNeil capacity factor per budget 63% 79% 72% 51% 37% 1.5% 27% 77% 88% 45% 42.3% 52.4% 62.4%
Winooski One generation (MWH) per budget 35 0 471 1,442 2,805 2,974 2,573 854 1,083 29,498 36,318 25,350 24,752 21,194
Winooski One availability factor 100% 1% 0% 40% 60% 70% 70% 70% 90% 90% 98% 97.2% 98.3% 97%
Winooski One capacity factor per budget 25% 0% 48% 27% 56% 56% 47% 17% 20% 48% 56% 41.7% 37%
Gas Turbine generation (MWH) NA 181 33.6 97.9 171.7 22.0 17.7 19.0 18.1 6.9 484 475 356 373 441
Gas Turbine availability factor 100% 87% 99% 99% 86% 89% 100% 100% 100% 97% 98% 46.7% 54.5% 96%
Gas Turbine capacity factor NA 4% 0.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.21%
BTV solar PV production (mWh) 565 646 658 632 466 503 410 117 215 5,020 4,681 5,260 5,015 5,182
Cost of power supply - gross ($000) $3,349 $3,574 $3,073 $2,760 $4,328 $3,346 $2,968 $2,629 $34,858 $30,002 $36,755 $30,285 $31,081
Cost of power supply - net ($000) $3,349 $3,574 $3,073 $1,829 $1,559 $3,346 $2,968 $2,629 $27,984 $22,710 $27,487 $22,134 $23,388
Average cost of power supply - gross $/KWH $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.18 $0.13 $0.11 $0.09 $0.11 $0.09 $0.11 $0.09 $0.10
Average cost of power supply - net $/KWH $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.07 $0.06 $0.13 $0.11 $0.09 $0.08 $0.07 $0.08 $0.07 $0.08
Burlington Electric
Department
Presentation to the
Board of Electric
Commissioners
Audit results and strategy for the year ending June 30, 2025


October 8, 2025
Audit results: Overview
Audit Results Auditors’ report Uncorrected Misstatements (to date) –
 Slide 6
Significant audit areas of emphasis: We are responsible for forming and
 expressing an opinion on the financial • Annually, management estimates the
• Cash
 statements, including an opinion on fiduciary amount of revenue/AR for RGGI. In the
• Investments
 funds, based on our audit, which is current year, this estimate differed from
• Sales, including renewable energy credits
 performed in accordance with auditing the actual revenue by $36.8k, which is
• Debt
• Utility Plant in Service standards generally accepted in the United greater than our posting threshold for
 States of America. Those standards require EEU.
• Net Assets
 that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
• Procurement, including purchase power, • In 2019, BED was denied regulatory asset
 reasonable assurance about whether the
  transmission, production costs, and other treatment of the 2019 McNeil plant
 financial statements are free from material
  expenses and related payables overhaul. The proper way to account for
• Payroll and Pension Liabilities misstatement. the overhaul would be to add a regulatory
• Overall financial statement presentation, We consider internal control but do not issue asset during a rate case filing, which
  commitments, and contingencies an opinion on internal controls. happened in 2021. As they had received
 denial of the regulatory asset, they had
 not recorded anything. Within 2025, BED
Open Items had recorded the liability as the expense
• Receipt of legal letters was already included within the rate case
 filings from 2021 and onward. As such,
• Management representation letter
 Management has corrected their
• Finalization of OPEB report from the City of Burlington regulatory liabiity to match the rate case
• Outstanding actuarial questions from KPMG pension specialist on pension obligation filings.

• Finalization of FS tieout
• Finalization of manager and partner reviews


 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 2
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Required
communications
to those charged
with governance
Prepared on: 9/30/2025
Presented on: 10/8/2025

 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 3
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Audit results required communications and other matters
Matters to communicate Response Matters to communicate Response
Significant unusual transactions X Related parties X
 No new related
 parties identified
Uncorrected audit misstatements X Going concern X
Corrected audit misstatements X Only the required
 Other information  MD&A
Financial statement presentation and
disclosure omissions
 X
  Disclosed in note 12
 No new Non-GAAP Subsequent events to the financial
Non-GAAP policies and practices X policies statements
 Noncompliance with laws and regulations X
Material weaknesses in internal control X Significant difficulties encountered during
 X
 the audit
 Draft report Significant findings or issues discussed, or
Auditors’ report  included in the subject of correspondence with X
 materials management
Changes to our risk assessment and Management’s consultation with other
planned audit strategy X accountants
 X
Significant accounting policies and
  Page 7 Disagreements with management X
practices

Significant accounting estimates  Pages 8 Other significant matters X

Significant financial statement disclosures  Pages 9  = Matters to report X = No matters to report


 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 4
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Audit results required communications and other matters
Matters to communicate

 There were no difficult or contentious matters for which the auditor consulted outside the engagement team that are
Consultations
 relevant to the audit committee’s oversight of the financial reporting process.


 No actual or suspected fraud involving management, employees with significant roles in system of internal control, or
Illegal acts or fraud
 where fraud results in a material misstatement in the financial statements were identified during the audit.


 Engagement letter and management representation letter, including summary of uncorrected misstatements to be
Written communications
 distributed under separate covers.


 We hereby affirm that as of September 30, 2025, we are independent accountants with respect to the Department
Independence
 under all relevant professional and regulatory standards.


Inquiries See page 10




 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 5
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Uncorrected audit misstatements
 Description of misstatement Quantitative income statement effect
 Misstatement A – EEU overestimate of Revenue/AR associated with RGGI
 Debit Credit

 EEU Revenue $ 36,802 -

 EEU Accounts Receivable - $36,802




 Misstatement B – Regulatory liability associated with the McNeil Current Period Current Period Prior Period Prior Period
 Overhaul (Out of Period Adjustment) Debit Credit Debit Credit

 Regulatory liability $657,720 - - $657,720

 Depreciation and amortization expense - $657,720 - -
 Unrestricted net position - - $657,720 -




 Uncorrected misstatements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements could potentially cause future-period financial statements to be materially
 misstated, even if we have concluded that the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements under audit.




 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 6
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Significant accounting policies and practices
Description of significant accounting policies and practices Audit findings

• Significant accounting policies and practices are disclosed in Note 1 of Qualitative aspects
  the financial statements • Our judgements on the quality of the Department’s accounting
• No changes to existing significant accounting policies in FY2025 practices are discussed in this meeting
• One new accounting standard was adopted by the Department in
  FY2025- GASB 101, Compensated Absences. The adoption of the Management Bias
  standard resulted in a restatement(reduction) of opening net assets in
  the amount of $52 thousand. See note 1x for additional information. • No matters to report as of the date of this presentation


 Effect on the financial statements or disclosures
 • The presentation on the financial statements and the related
 disclosures are in conformity with U.S. GAAP, including our
 consideration of the form, arrangement, and content of the financial
 statements (including the accompanying notes). There were no
 material omissions of financial statement presentation and disclosures
 noted.




 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 7
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Significant accounting estimates
Description of significant accounting estimates

 Fair Market Value of Investments
 Net Pension Liability

Audit findings
Indicators of possible management bias
• No matters to report
Qualitative aspects
• The Department uses reputable custodians for the valuation of investments. The City engages a qualified actuary to assist in developing methods
  and assumptions to value the net pension liability. The Department does not have input or oversight over that process as it receives only a
  proportionate share of the City’s overall liability.
• We have priced 100% of investments using our independent pricing desk
• We have utilized a qualified KPMG Actuary to evaluate the methods and assumptions used in the valuation of the pension liability.




Conclusions

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements. We have evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop
management’s estimates and found them to be reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.


 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 8
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Significant financial statement disclosures
Description of significant financial statement disclosures Audit findings

Disclosures related to: Qualitative aspects
 Capital Assets • Our judgements on the quality of the Department’s financial statement
 Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments disclosures are discussed in this meeting
 Regulatory Assets and Deferred Inflows of Resources
 Long Term Liabilities
 Short-Term Debt
 Production Expenses
 Retirement Benefits
 Other Post-Employment Benefits
 Compensated Absences
 Commitments and Contingencies




 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 9
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Required inquiries
• What are your views about fraud risks, including • Are you aware of any matters relevant to the audit,
 management override of controls, at the entity and whether including, but not limited to, any instances of actual or
 you have taken any actions to respond to these risks? possible violations of laws and regulations, including illegal
• Are you aware of, or have you identified, any instances of acts (irrespective of materiality threshold)?
 actual, suspected or alleged fraud, including misconduct or • Has the entity complied with all covenants during the
 unethical behavior related to financial reporting or financial statement period and before the date of the
 misappropriation of assets? auditor's report?
 If so, have the instances been appropriately addressed and Have there been any events of default during the financial
 how have they been addressed? statement period and before the dates of the auditor's
• Are you aware of or have you received tips or complaints report?
 regarding the entity's financial reporting (including those • What is the board of commissioner's understanding of the
 received through the internal whistleblower program, if such entity's relationships and transactions with related parties
 program exists) and, if so, what was your response to such that are significant to the entity?
 tips and complaints? • Does any member of the board have concerns regarding
• How do you exercise oversight over management's relationships or transactions with related parties and, if so,
 assessment of fraud risk and the establishment of controls what are the substance of those concerns?
 to address/mitigate fraud risks? • Have any subsequent events occurred that might affect the
• Has the entity entered into any significant unusual financial statements?
 transactions? • Have there been any correspondence with regulators or
 licensing authorities?




 © 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member 10
 firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Questions? For additional information and audit committee resources, including National Audit
 Committee Peer Exchange series, a Quarterly webcast, and suggested publications,
 visit the KPMG Audit Committee Institute (ACI) at www.kpmg.com/ACI

 This presentation to those charged with governance is intended solely for the information and use
 of those charged with governance and management and is not intended to be and should not be
 used by anyone other than these specified parties. This presentation is not intended for general
 use, circulation or publication and should not be published, circulated, reproduced or used for any
 purpose without our prior written permission in each specific instance.




Learn about us: kpmg.com



The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or
entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as
of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate
professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
© 2025 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member
firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization.
 Burlington Electric Department
Triennial Customer Satisfaction Surveys
 2025
 Methodology

• Third-party, unbiased satisfaction study that guarantees respondent
  confidentiality
• Utilizes BED’s Residential and Commercial customer databases
 • Random sample of over 16,000 (unduplicated) residential customers
 • Entire list of over 2,000 (unduplicated) commercial customers
• Email and Telephone data collection conducted in May-June 2025 during
  daytimes and evenings on weekdays and weekends
• 883 residential and 73 commercial responses collected
 • Residential data have a +/-3.2% margin of error.
 • Commercial data have a +/-11% margin of error.
 Residential Demographics Overview
Do you Own or Rent your home? 2014 2017 2022 2025
Own 52.1 49.3 49.3 55.8
Rent 47.9 50.7 50.7 44.2

Do you regularly speak a language other than English in your home? 2022 2025
Yes 6.9 7.1

kWh usage category 2014 2017 2022 2025
Low (<=300 kWh) 41.8 44.2 47.3 40.7
Medium (>300<=750 kWh) 48.7 47.4 44.0 48.2
High (>750 kWh) 9.5 8.4 8.7 11.1

Length of service 2014 2017 2022 2025
Less than 1 year 33.1 31.7 20.3 12.3
1-5 years 25.9 29.4 47.6 44.4
Over 5 years 41.0 39.0 32.1 43.4
 How satisfied overall would you say you are with Burlington
 Electric Department?
10
 8.9 9.0
 9 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.7
 8.6 8.6 8.5
 8.3
 8

 7

 6

 5

 4

 3

 2

 1

 0
 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2022 2025
 Residential Commercial
 How important is it to you/your company that BED…
 Provide reliable electric service 9.7
 9.6

 Is effective in an emergency 9.6
 9.5

 Have fair and reasonable rates 9.3
 9.1


 Resolve questions or problems quickly 9.2
 8.9


 Provide technical assistance to increase energy efficiency 8.1
 8


 Offer rebates for products to increase energy efficiency 8.1
 8


Communicate about programs and services to increase energy efficiency 7.9
 7.9


 Is a non-profit organization 7.8
 6.6
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 Residential Commercial
 Percent satisfied with how BED handled a question or inquiry.
100.0 95.8
 93.4 93.3 93.0
 91.0 92.5 89.8
 92.0 90.6
 88.9 88.5
 90.0 86.3 86.0
 79.5
 80.0

 70.0

 60.0

 50.0

 40.0

 30.0

 20.0

 10.0

  0.0
 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2022 2025
 Residential Commercial
  Percent satisfied with BED energy efficiency programs.
100.0 95.4 95.5
 94.3 93.2 93.3 94.5 93.8 94.9 93.1
 91.2 93.0
 90.8 89.7
 90.0 88.0


 80.0

 70.0

 60.0

 50.0

 40.0

 30.0

 20.0

 10.0

  0.0
 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2022 2025
 Residential Commercial
 Is there a reason you have not participated in BED’s energy
efficiency programs including weatherization, lighting rebates
 or efficient appliances? Residential
50.0
 45.9
45.0 42.5
 40.2
40.0

35.0

30.0 28.8
 26.7
25.0 23.6

20.0

15.0

10.0 7.4
 5.0 2.7 2.9 2.2 2.0
 0.5
 0.0
 Not Applicable/Don't fit Needs Unaware Cost Not interested


 2017 2022 2025
 Do you/your company own an EV or PHEV?
50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

 19.7
20.0 18.0

15.0

10.0 9.0
 7.4

 5.0 3.2 4.0


 0.0
 2017 2022 2025
 Residential Commercial
 Why have you not used a BED rebate to purchase an EV or
 PHEV? Residential
 2.4
 3.6
 6.9


 13.5 42.8




 13.8




 18.5

 29.7


I am waiting until my current vehicle needs to be replaced They are too expensive, even with available rebates
I already have an EV or PHEV An EV or PHEV does not fit my needs
I need an electrical panel upgrade to do this I am completely uninterested in buying or leasing an EV
I am waiting for more electric trucks to be available I am considering an EV or plug-in hybrid now because of higher gas prices
 Do you/your company have a Cold Climate Heat Pump
 (CCHP)?
100
 16.4 17.7 13.2
 90
 25.8
 80

 70

 60
 57.9
 56.5
 50 65.1
 61.3
 40

 30

 20
 25.9 28.9
 10 18.5
 12.9
 0
 Residential Residential Commercial Commercial
 2022 2025 2022 2025
 Yes No Unsure
 Why have you not used a BED rebate to purchase a CCHP?
 Residential
 5.3
 6.9

 10 32.2



 11.6



 13.8
 20.3



 16.6
 18.1



I am not responsible for heating equipment purchases (renter, etc.) I am waiting until my current heating system must be replaced
They are too expensive, even with available rebates I am considering purchasing one now because I want to use it to cool my home
A CCHP does not fit my heating needs I am considering purchasing one now because of climate change
I need an electrical panel upgrade to do this I am considering purchasing one now because of higher heating costs
I am completely uninterested in buying a cold climate heat pump
 Would you still consider getting a heat pump if the operating
 cost would be the same or slightly more expensive, but it
 would benefit the environment? Residential
100

 90 15.3
 22.8
 80 9.4
 70 11.8

 60

 50

 40
 75.3
 30 65.4

 20

 10

 0
 2022 2025
 Yes No Unsure
 Which of the Following ways do you use your CCHP?
100.0 97.4
 90.9
 90.0 87.4 87.3

 80.0

 70.0

 60.0

 50.0

 40.0

 30.0

 20.0
 10.8 12.0
 9.1
 10.0
 1.8 0.7 2.6
 0.0 0.0
  0.0
 Residential Residential Commercial Commercial
 2022 2025 2022 2025
 Both Heating and Cooling Heating only Cooling only
 During which months do you/your company use your CCHP
 for heating?
100.0

 90.0
 87.9
 85.0 85.0 85.0
 80.0 85.0
 80.0 79.5
 76.5 77.3
 78.8
 70.0
 65.2
 62.9
 60.0

 50.0
 45.0
 40.0

 30.0
 25.0
 20.0 22.0

 10.0
 10.0 10.6
 5.0 2.3
 5.0 1.5
  0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
 January February March April May June July August September October November December
 Residential Commercial
 From which of the following sources do you get community
 news and events? Residential
100

 90

 80 75
 70 68
 63
 60 59 60
 60 55 55
 54 52 53 53
 50
 50 46 44
 40
 40
 33
 30 28 30
 30 28
 23 24
 21
 20 16
 14 14
 10

 0
 Seven Days Front Porch Social Media Word of Mouth Online Radio Burlington Free TV North Avenue Print
 Forum Newspaper Press News Newspaper
 2017 2022 2025
 Who do you trust most for energy information?
 Residential

 41.9
 40.1

35.8 36.6
 33.6
 32.5




 19.3

 15.1
 12.9

 6.9 6.9 6.9
 3.8
 1.6 2.4 1.8 0.9 1.1

Burlington Electric Efficiency Vermont The State of Vermont Neighbors or friends Private contractors or solar Your heating company
 installers
 2017 2022 2025
 Thank You.

Questions? Comments?
 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE (EVCI) AGREEMENT

 CITY OF BURLINGTON
 AND
 <<PROPERTY OWNER>>




 THIS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT (this
“EVCI Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2025 by and
between the CITY OF BURLINGTON, a Vermont Municipal Corporation located in Chittenden
County, acting through its Electric Department (“BED”), and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> its
successors or assigns (“ ”) a ___ with principal offices at___.

 WHEREAS, BED and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> desire to enter into this EVCI
Agreement to expand the public availability of electric vehicle charging infrastructure within the
CITY OF BURLINGTON in order to encourage the increased use of alternatives to fossil fuel-
fired transportation;

 WHEREAS, BED has built or contracted for a communications platform and
administrative mechanism for the purpose of operating and collecting funds for such infrastructure
that can be expanded to provide public vehicle charging services within the City of Burlington;
and

 WHEREAS, BED owns and operates public vehicle charging stations and provides electric
vehicle (“EV”) charging services at such stations at rates that are approved by the Vermont Public
Utility Commission; and,

 WHEREAS, <<PROPERTY OWNER>> owns and or manages all parking areas at the Site
Location (as defined by the map in Exhibit A);

 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, BED and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> hereby agree as
follows:

 1. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> hereby grants BED the right to install, operate and
maintain up to ____BED-owned Level <<Two or Three>> vehicle charging stations (individually
“Charging Station” and collectively the “Charging Stations” or “EVCI”) at the Site Location at the
area marked in Exhibit A. Each such Charging Station will include a dedicated parking space,
whereby such parking will be dedicated to electric vehicle charging only and available to the public
with such parking restrictions as imposed by <<PROPERTY OWNER>>. <<PROPERTY
OWNER>> will not impose any parking limitations that will prohibit or penalize any Charging
Station user from obtaining a sufficient battery charge for their vehicle consistent with BED’s
public EV charging tariff, and will make every attempt to meet Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) access requirements at each vehicle Charging Station.

 Page 1 of 7
 2. The initial term of this EVCI Agreement shall be three years beginning xxx, 20__
and ending xxx, 20__ (the “Initial Term”). Upon the expiration of the Initial Term, this EVCI
Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one-year periods unless and until terminated
by either party pursuant to the terms hereof (any such renewal terms together with the Initial Term,
the “Term”).

 3. During the Initial Term, BED and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> will install up to
____ Level <<Two or Three>> EV Charging Stations at the Site Location, with specific locations
mutually agreed to between the parties and, to the extent such consent is required, the City of
Burlington, Vermont. Once agreed to between the parties, a site plan showing the final Site
Locations shall be attached to this EVCI Agreement as Exhibit B. The final selected Site Locations
shall provide unrestricted and unobstructed access to the Charging Stations as is necessary for (i)
charging EVs by any EV owners or operators 24 hours a day and seven days a week, and (ii)
maintenance and repair of the Charging Stations by BED or its representatives.

 4. BED will provide site assessment and approved construction drawings as needed
for each Charging Station location that both parties consider viable for service to be provided to
the Charging Stations from BED’s distribution system. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall
coordinate and agree to provide access for BED to such locations and any associated infrastructure
needed for assessment, construction, and operation of the Charging Stations as mutually agreed
upon by <<PROPERTY OWNER>> and BED. BED will provide site assessment and EVCI
installation, including site work, commissioning and ongoing maintenance of equipment,
hardware, and software at no cost to <<PROPERTY OWNER>>. Prior to the initial EVCI
installation work performed at the Site Location, BED will provide current insurance certificates
for all contractors and subcontractors as outlined in Section 14.

 5. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> reserves the right to request removal of any Charging
Station or EVCI-associated electrical equipment within the Site Location upon 120 days prior
written notice to BED. BED will remove such Charging Stations from the Site Location and restore
the Site Location to pre-installation conditions.

 6. Following receipt of all necessary consents detailed in this EVCI Agreement, BED
shall arrange for installation of all Charging Stations per Exhibit B attached hereto.

 7. BED will provide electricity to the EVCI directly from its distribution system. BED
will sell, at the same cost, charging services to all users of the EVCI infrastructure. Such cost will
be according to tariffs approved by the Vermont Public Utility Commission as may be adjusted
from time to time. BED’s public EV charging tariff includes “overstay” pricing to encourage EVCI
users to stay in a location no longer than needed to obtain a full battery charge. BED will collect
all amounts directly through a transaction that is managed through the BED charging network.
BED’s public EV charging tariff is subject to change with the approval of the Vermont Public
Utility Commission.

 8. BED will have responsibility for the posting of electronic messages that appear on
the EVCI user interface screen. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> will have the right to submit electronic

 Page 2 of 7
messages to BED for display on the EVCI user interface screen and BED will accommodate such
messages to the extent possible. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> may change such messages no more
than four times per year.

 9. BED and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> agree that the Charging Stations shall at all
times be available for access and use by the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the
Term of this EVCI Agreement; provided, however, that <<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall have
the right to restrict access and/or use of the Charging Station during agreed upon dates and times
and in cases of emergency.

 10. BED shall obtain any and all necessary federal, state, municipal or other licenses,
permits and/or approvals for the installation and operation of the Charging Stations, but not
including any <<PROPERTY OWNER>> signage pursuant to Section 18 below. <<PROPERTY
OWNER>> shall cooperate and assist in obtaining all of such licenses, permits and approvals.

 11. BED will be solely responsible for all necessary servicing and repair of the
Charging Stations. In the event of any Charging Station failure, damage, or other problem requiring
repair, replacement, adjustment or maintenance, <<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall notify BED or
a person designated by BED within twenty-four (24) hours of first becoming aware of such failure
or problem. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> will not permit anyone, other than an authorized
representative or designee of BED, to perform any service or repair work on a Charging Station
without BED’s prior written approval. BED or its representatives shall at any reasonable time and
at all times during business hours have the right to enter into and upon the Site Location for the
purpose of inspecting, repairing, maintaining, or upgrading Charging Stations and observing their
use. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall keep the Site Locations clean and shall maintain the space
surrounding Charging Stations in a safe, neat and orderly condition. In the event of problem or
failure with the charging station, BED or its designee shall be on-site to assess the situation within
three business days of notice from <<PROPERTY OWNER>>, and perform such repairs or
replacement in a timely manner, unless extenuating circumstances exist.

 12. BED will obtain data remotely through the reporting system in each Charging
Station. If requested, BED will provide <<PROPERTY OWNER>> access to EVCI data subject
to the redaction of any personally identifiable information.

 13. The Charging Stations shall remain at all times the personal property of BED. BED
shall be solely responsible for Charging Station property insurance and shall insure the EVCI
against loss, theft, damage, or destruction in amounts determined by its sole judgement.

 14. BED shall, at its own cost and expense, obtain and maintain in continuous effect a
policy, or policies, of commercial general liability insurance with limits of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit, including coverage for bodily injury and
property damage, contractual liability and for property of others in BED’s care, custody and
control, to include fire, legal liability, commercial automobile liability insurance with limits of not
less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, including operation of owned, non-
owned and hired vehicles; coverage for workers compensation in accordance with State or Federal
statute; and Employers Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One Hundred Thousand

 Page 3 of 7
Dollars ($100,000) per occurrence and Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) annual
aggregate. BED shall be responsible for carrying property insurance on its own personal property
as well as any improvements or betterments to the Site Location. Should any of the described
policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, notice will be delivered in accordance with
the policy provisions. BED shall submit, at the time of signing this EVCI Agreement, proof of all
of the above referenced insurance coverages.

 15. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> will maintain all aspects of parking and roadways
required for the use of Site Locations, including, but not limited to landscaping, snow removal,
paving, parking charges and signage.

 16. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> represents and warrants that it is the owner of the Site
Location or otherwise has the legal authority to enter into this EVCI Agreement.

 17. In the event <<PROPERTY OWNER>> transfers ownership of any Site Locations,
or if <<PROPERTY OWNER>> sells its business, <<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall notify BED
not less than sixty (60) days prior to any such event. In such event, this EVCI Agreement shall
automatically terminate.

 18. Each party shall, at its option, have the right to publicly advertise the availability
of the Charging Stations. Each party shall further, at its option, have the right to install appropriate
signage at the Property and the Site Locations. Depending upon the extent of the signage, it may
be subject to the prior approval of the City of Burlington. Any and all such advertisements shall
be approved by the other party prior to use by such party, such approval not to be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned or delayed. Any and all signage shall be approved by the other party prior
to use by such party and, to the extent such approval is necessary, the City of Burlington, Vermont.

 19. Except to the extent arising out of or related to the negligence or willful misconduct
of <<PROPERTY OWNER>>, its agents, employees or servants, BED shall, to the greatest extent
permissible by law, indemnify <<PROPERTY OWNER>> and hold it harmless from and against
any and all damages, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with loss of life, personal
injury and/or damage to property arising out of the Charging Station or any part thereof, if
occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of BED, its agents, employees or servants. In
the event of any claim for damages, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with loss of
life, personal injury and/or damage to property to the extent arising out of the Charging Station
occasioned by the negligence or willful misconduct of <<PROPERTY OWNER>>,
<<PROPERTY OWNER>> shall, to the greatest extent permissible by law, indemnify and hold
harmless BED from and against any such claim.

 20. Either party may terminate this EVCI Agreement, effective thirty (30) days after
giving written notice of intent to terminate, upon the occurrence of a material breach provided that
such breach continues for thirty (30) days after written notice of such breach. In addition, either
party may terminate this EVCI Agreement for convenience at any time upon giving ninety (90)
days prior written notice to the other party. Upon termination or expiration of this EVCI
Agreement, or in the event that BED chooses to no longer own and operate the Charging Stations,
they shall offer <<PROPERTY OWNER>> the option to purchase the EVCIs at depreciated book

 Page 4 of 7
value. If <<PROPERTY OWNER>> elects not to acquire the Charging Stations, BED shall
remove all of its property and restore the Site Location set forth on Exhibit A, to its prior condition.
The condition of Site Locations prior to BED installation of its charging station shall be
documented by photo and attached hereto as Exhibit B once the final Site Locations are agreed
upon.

 21. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given upon deposit
in the United States mail, first class postage fully prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed to BED and <<PROPERTY OWNER>> at their respective addresses as listed below.
Any party may change its address for notice in accordance with the terms of this section.

 If to BED:

 Burlington Electric Department
 585 Pine Street
 Burlington, VT 05401
 (802)658-0300

 If to <<PROPERTY OWNER>>:


 22. If suit or action is instituted to enforce or interpret any of the terms of this EVCI
Agreement, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in
addition to costs, such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable for legal fees.

 23. <<PROPERTY OWNER>> understands and agrees that BED makes no warranty,
express, implied or statutory, as to any matter whatsoever, including the condition of the charging
station, its merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.

 24. Neither party shall in any event be responsible to the other party for any lost profits
or incidental, consequential, special or indirect damages.

 25. Neither party will be liable for failure to perform its obligations under this EVCI
Agreement if such failure is due to acts or events beyond such party’s reasonable control and not
reasonably anticipated at the time of execution of this EVCI Agreement.

 26. Neither party may assign or dispose of any of its rights or obligations under this
EVCI Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, such consent not to be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. This EVCI Agreement is binding on the successors
and permitted assigns of the parties.

 27. A waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this EVCI Agreement shall
not constitute a waiver of that party’s rights to otherwise demand strict compliance with this EVCI
Agreement and any and all provisions hereof. Any waiver must be agreed to in writing by the
Party waiving its right or rights.


 Page 5 of 7
 28. This EVCI Agreement, including any schedule or exhibit attached hereto,
constitutes the entire EVCI Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
There are no other promises, representations, terms, conditions or obligations other than those
contained herein. This EVCI Agreement supersedes all prior communications, representations or
EVCI Agreements, oral or written, between the parties and shall not be modified except in writing
signed by both parties.

 29. This EVCI Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance
with the laws of the State of Vermont, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws that
would require the application of any other law.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly authorized representatives of the parties have
executed this EVCI Agreement as of the date first written above.


 CITY OF BURLINGTON <<PROPERTY OWNER>>
 BURLINGTON ELECTRIC
 DEPARTMENT

 By: ______________________________ By: ______________________________

 Name:____________________________ Name: ____________________________
 Title: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________




 Page 6 of 7
 EXHIBIT A
SITE LOCATION




 Page 7 of 7
 MEMORANDUM

To: Burlington Electric Commission
From: Emily Stebbins-Wheelock, CFO and Manager of Strategy & Innovation
Date: October 8, 2025
Subject: Proposed Changes to BED Miscellaneous Service Fees




The Burlington Electric Department (BED) is seeking Electric Commission recommendation to request
the City Council’s approval to file an updated “Miscellaneous Service Fees” tariff with the Vermont
Public Utility Commission.

Background

Miscellaneous Services include utility services undertaken in support of or in response to a request by a
unique customer. BED charges distinct fees for these services on a per-occurrence basis under a PUC-
approved Miscellaneous Service Fees tariff that is appended to BED’s Operating Guidelines. BED charges
separately for these services in accordance with the utility rate-making principle of “cost causer pays;”
because only certain customers request or require such services, it would not be just or fair to assign the
cost of these services to all customers through electric service rates.

BED’s Miscellaneous Service Fees have not been updated since the current fees became effective July 1,
2010. The current fees were based on FY 2009 costs and were developed prior to BED’s deployment of
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), which enabled remote connection and disconnection of
meters, among other functionality.

Internal Fee Review

BED began a review of its Miscellaneous Service Fees in 2023 at the Electric Commission’s request and
has updated that analysis in the past month. The current fee proposal reflects the following changes
from the fees currently in effect:

 • Reviewed business processes associated with all miscellaneous service fees, including degree
 and nature of AMI involvement
 • Reviewed and updated all time and personnel involvement with each service
 • Updated labor rates to FY26 levels
 • Updated labor overhead rate to FY25 actual
 • Updated minimum call and overtime rates per current IBEW contract
 • Updated vehicle rates
 • Updated materials costs as of September 2025
 • Updated stores clearing rate for materials to FY25 actual
 • Analyzed initial service performed for new vs. returning customers
 (In 2023, 46% were new customers and 54% returning customers)
 • Analyzed depreciation on AMI-related assets (meters, servers, software)


Proposed Changes

The proposed fee changes are outlined in the attached table, which shows the current and proposed fee
title, description, and rate. The proposed changes include increases and decreases in rates, addition and
elimination of fees, and wording changes, as follows:

 • The Initial Service fee would decrease from $30 and split into two categories, $5 for Returning
 Customers and $15 for New Customers.
 • The Initial Service-after-hours fee would decrease from $195 to $109.
 • The Reconnection fee would increase from $20 to $26 and be charged for any reconnection, not
 just reconnection following a disconnection for non-payment.
 • The Reconnection-after hours fee would decrease from $195 to $130, be charged for any
 reconnection (not just reconnection following a disconnection for non-payment), and be
 charged instead of the initial service fee when reconnection accompanies a request for service.
 • The Temporary Service fee would increase from $535 to $882.
 • The Returned Check fee would increase from $10 to $19.
 • The Meter Removal/Replacement fee would increase from $95 to $165. Title and description
 changes are proposed that would make the fee more generic and more equitable by allowing
 BED to charge for meter pulls that are performed for reasons other than siding work.
 • The Collection fee would be eliminated.
 • BED is proposing that the fees currently titled “customer assistance call” be retitled as “power
 problem investigation-customer responsibility” based on feedback from customers that
 indicated that the current label is confusing. BED is also proposing updates to the description of
 these fees.
 o The Power Problem Investigation-Customer Responsibility fee would increase from $28
 to $156.
 o The Power Problem Investigation-Customer Responsibility-after hours fee would
 increase from $195 to $562.
 • BED is proposing new fees for on-site disconnect/reconnect assistance, to include both single-
 meter and multi-meter with and without lineworker assistance with underground service. BED
 performed approximately 275 of these services last year, and currently does not charge for
 them. Typically, these requests are driven by some work being performed on the customer’s
 electrical service to expand, upgrade, or bring it up to code, install solar, do work on the roof, or
 other similar situations.
 o Disconnect/Reconnect - Single-Meter fee would be $577
 o Disconnect/Reconnect - Single-Meter, Underground fee would be $796
 o Disconnect/Reconnect - Multi-Meter fee would be $666
 o Disconnect/Reconnect - Multi-Meter, Underground fee would be $885.

 Customer Communication

 BED has updated its website to include information on the proposed fees, posted a message about the
 proposed changes on Front Porch Forum, and will be including a message about the proposed changes
 on customer bills.

 Estimated Revenue Impact

 BED estimates that the net effect of the proposed fee changes will be an increase in annual fee revenues
 of $38,346, as shown in the table below.
 Test Year - FY 2024 Adjusted Test Year
 Existing Billing Proposed Billing
 rates Determinant Revenues rates Determinant Revenues Difference
Initial Service Fee $ 30.00 5,698 $ 170,940 $ - - $ - $ (170,940)
Initial Service Fee-Returning Customer $ - - $ - $ 5.00 3,077 $ 15,385 $ 15,385
Initial Service Fee-New Customer $ - - $ - $ 15.00 2,621 $ 39,316 $ 39,316
Initial Service Fee-After-Hours $ 195.00 11 $ 2,145 $ 109.00 11 $ 1,199 $ (946)
Reconnection $ 20.00 175 $ 3,500 $ 26.00 175 $ 4,550 $ 1,050
Reconnection-After-Hours $ 195.00 5 $ 975 $ 130.00 5 $ 650 $ (325)
Temporary Service $ 535.00 0 $ - $ 882.00 0 $ - $ -
Returned Check $ 10.00 186 $ 1,860 $ 19.00 186 $ 3,534 $ 1,674
Meter Removal/Replacement $ 95.00 7 $ 670 $ 165.00 7 $ 1,164 $ 494
Collection $ 20.00 0 $ - $ - 0 $ - $ -
Power Problem Investigation-Customer
Responsibility
Power Problem(Customer Assistance Call)
 Investigation-Customer $ 28.00 0 $ - $ 156.00 0 $ - $ -
Responsibility (Customer Assistance Call)-After-
Hours $ 195.00 0 $ - $ 562.00 0 $ - $ -
 Test Year - CY 2024 Adjusted Test Year
Disco/Reco Single-Meter $ - 125 $ - $ 577.00 125 $ 72,125 $ 72,125
Disco/Reco Single-Meter with Lineworker Assistance $ - 56 $ - $ 796.00 56 $ 44,576 $ 44,576
Disco/Reco Multi-Meter $ - 42 $ - $ 666.00 42 $ 27,972 $ 27,972
Disco/Reco Multi-Meter with Lineworker Assistance $ - 9 $ - $ 885.00 9 $ 7,965 $ 7,965
 6,314 $ 180,090 6,314 $ 218,435 $ 38,346

 The largest drivers of revenue change are the reduction in the initial service fees and the addition of the
 new disconnect/reconnect fees. Initial service fee revenue is expected to decrease by approximately
 $117,000 per year, but the new disconnect/reconnect fees are expected to increase revenue by
 approximately $152,000 per year.



 I look forward to answering any questions Commissioners may have on October 8th.
 Burlington Electric Department
 Miscellaneous Service Fees Proposal

 Current Fees
 Proposed
Current Fee Title Current Description as of Proposed Fee Title Proposed Description
 Fees
 9/23/12

 Charged to a customer whenever the electric Charged to returning customers, including standing
Initial Service service is put in that customer's name at a service Initial Service-Returning orders, whenever the electric service is put in that
 location 30.00 $5.00 Customer customer’s name at a service location

 Charged to a customer whenever the electric
 Charged to a customer new to BED’s service territory
Initial Service service is put in that customer's name at a service
 whenever the electric service is put in that customer’s
 location
 30.00 $15.00 Initial Service-New Customer name at a service location
 Charged whenever BED personnel are called in to Charged whenever BED personnel are called in to work
Initial Service Fee - minimum call work during non-working hours to respond to a outside of business hours to respond to a customer
 customer request for initial service 195.00 $109.00 Initial Service-after-hours request for initial service
 Charged to restore service remotely to a customer
 Charged to restore service to a customer who has
 whose service has been disconnected; this fee will be
Reconnection been disconnected for non-payment of electric
 charged instead of the initial service fee when
 services
 20.00 $26.00 Reconnection reconnection accompanies a request for service.
 Charged to restore service remotely outside of
 Charged whenever BED personnel are called in to business hours to a customer whose service has been
Reconnection - minimum call work during non-working hours for the purpose of disconnected; this fee will be charged instead of the
 responding to a customer request for reconnection initial service fee when reconnection accompanies a
 195.00 $130.00 Reconnection - after-hours request for service.

 Normally for construction purposes; charged when
Temporary Service temporary service of single phase, 240 volt, 100
 amp characteristics or less is installed at a site
 535.00 $882.00 No change

 Charged each time a check is not honored by the
Returned Check Charged each time a check or ACH/electronic payment
 bank
 10.00 $19.00 is not honored by the bank

 Charged for removal and replacement of up to two
Meter Removal/Replacement for Charged for removal and replacement of up to two
 meters at a service location for purpose of installing
Siding Meter Removal/Replacement meters during business hours at a service location for
 siding materials on a building
 95.00 $165.00 for Siding purpose of installing siding materials on a building
 Charged when BED personnel collects funds at a
 customer's service location. For example, if funds
Collection are collected during the course of the disconnection
 process this fee will be charged versus a NA - recommend eliminating fee and charging only
 disconnection fee. 20.00 $68.00 NA reconnect fee to restore power after payment

 Charged whenever a customer asks BED personnel to
 visit the customer's service location to investigate a
 Charged whenever BED personnel are requested to
 problem with the customer's power and the problem
Customer Assistance Call visit a customer's service location and the problem
 is determined to be the customer's responsibility. BED
 is determined to be the customer's responsibility
 will not perform work on equipment that is the
 Power Problem Investigation- customer's responsibility during a Power Problem
 28.00 $156.00 Customer Responsibility Investigation.
 Current Fees
 Proposed
Current Fee Title Current Description as of Proposed Fee Title Proposed Description
 Fees
 9/23/12


 Charged whenever a customer asks BED personnel are
 Charged whenever BED personnel are called in to called in to visit the customer's service location work
 work during non-working hours for the purpose of outside of business hours to investigate a problem
Customer Assistance Call - minimum callresponding to a customer request for assistance with the customer's power for the purpose of
 and the problem is determined to be customer's responding to a customer request for assistance and
 responsibility the problem is determined to be customer's
 Power Problem Investigation- responsibility. BED will not perform work on
 Customer Responsibility-after- equipment that is the customer's responsibility during
 195.00 $562.00 hours a Power Problem Investigation.

 A Disconnect/Reconnect-Single-Meter Fee will be
 charged when a customer or their contractor asks BED
NA - new proposed fee NA - new proposed fee field personnel to visit the customer’s single-meter
 property during business hours to perform a
 Disconnect/Reconnect - Single- disconnection and/or reconnection of electric service
 NA $577.00 Meter where no BED engineering work is required.
 A Disconnect/Reconnect-Single-Meter, Underground
 Fee will be charged when a customer or their
 contractor asks BED field personnel to visit the
 customer’s single-meter property during business
NA - new proposed fee NA - new proposed fee
 hours to perform a disconnection and/or reconnection
 of electric service that requires BED lineworkers to pull
 Disconnect/Reconnect - Single- underground service but does not require BED
 NA $796.00 Meter, Underground engineering work.
 A Disconnect/Reconnect-Multi-Meter Fee will be
 charged when a customer or their contractor asks BED
 field personnel to visit the customer’s multi-meter
NA - new proposed fee NA - new proposed fee
 property during business hours to perform a
 Disconnect/Reconnect - Multi- disconnection and/or reconnection of electric service
 NA $666.00 Meter where no BED engineering work is required.


 A Disconnect/Reconnect-Multi-Meter, Underground
 Fee will be charged when a customer or their
 contractor asks BED field personnel to visit the
NA - new proposed fee NA - new proposed fee customer’s multi-meter property during business
 hours to perform a disconnection and/or reconnection
 of electric service that requires BED lineworkers to pull
 Disconnect/Reconnect - Multi- underground service but does not require BED
 NA $885.00 Meter, Underground engineering work.
Executive Session - Cybersecurity

I move to find that premature general public knowledge regarding cybersecurity would clearly
place the Burlington Electric Department at a substantial disadvantage per Title 1, Section 313
(a)(1) of the Vermont Statutes.
I move that the Commission enter into executive session to discuss cybersecurity under the
provisions of Title 1, Section 313(a)(1)(A) of the Vermont Statutes.
Executive session start time:

Executive session end time:



Executive Session – KPMG

I move to find that premature general public knowledge regarding the FY25 KPMG Audit would
clearly place the Burlington Electric Department at a substantial disadvantage per Title 1, Section
313 (a)(1) of the Vermont Statutes.
I move that the Commission enter into executive session to discuss the FY25 KPMG Audit under
the provisions of Title 1, Section 313(a)(1)(A) of the Vermont Statutes.
Executive session start time:

Executive session end time:



Misc. Fees

I move to recommend that the Board of Finance and City Council authorize BED to submit the
proposed changes to the miscellaneous service fee tariff to the Vermont Public Utility
Commission for approval.



EV Charging Site License Agreement

I move that the Electric Commission approve and recommend that the City Council approve the
use of the proposed electric vehicle charging infrastructure agreement as a generic site license
agreement for BED-owned public EV charging stations on private property.

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
 BURLINGTON ELECTRIC COMMISSION

 Wednesday, October 8, 2025

The regular meeting of the Burlington Electric Commission was convened at 5:06 pm on
Wednesday, October 8, 2025, at Burlington Electric Department, 585 Pine Street, Burlington,
Vermont, and on Microsoft Teams.

Attendance
  Channel 17 was present to record this meeting.
  Commissioners Lara Bonn, Ali Kenney, Scott Moody, and Andy Vota were present.
  Staff members Elena Alexander, Erica Ferland, Mike Flora, Amanda Hurlbut, Mike Kanarick,
 Lincoln Sprague, Darren Springer, and Emily Stebbins-Wheelock were present at 585 Pine
 Street.
  Staff members Paul Alexander, Munir Kasti, and Amber Widmayer were present via
 Microsoft Teams.
  UVM Center for Rural Studies consultant Michael Moser was present at 585 Pine Street.
  KPMG auditors Renee Bourget-Place and Jake Day were present via Microsoft Teams.
  Public member Alan Bjerke was present at 585 Pine Street.

Agenda
There were no proposed changes to the agenda.

Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Moody made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2025,
Commission Meeting; Commissioner Kenney seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes 0 nays.

Public Forum
Alan Bjerke, Burlington resident, spoke about miscellaneous service fees, particularly the initial
service fee, stating that in March 2024, the City Council approved new fees. Mr. Bjerke requested
that the Department file the proposal with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) by the December
Commission meeting.

Monthly Impact Minute
Mike Flora, Director of Safety and Environmental, presented an update on the R99 Renewable
Diesel initiative at the Gas Turbine. Renewable diesel is chemically similar to conventional diesel
and derived from renewable sources, leading to lower emissions via hydro treating. Bene its of R99
include a high cetane number for better emissions, excellent cold weather performance, and early
indications of no carbon buildup on fuel nozzles. BED conducted a test run of the Gas Turbine on
 1
R99 to gather emissions data and monitor equipment in hopes of beginning to run the unit solely on
R99 in future. The next steps involve awaiting lab results by November and submitting permit
modi ication applications to the State of Vermont.

Commissioners’ Corner
No items presented or discussed.

General Manager’s Update
General Manager Springer shared the following:
 A successful EV press event was held on September 22, with participation of the Mayor and
 Champlain Elementary 5th-graders, during which BED announced that our all-electric EV
 incentive has increased to $5,000 for all customers and $5,700 for income-quali ied customers
 as of October 1, 2025. The increase is funded through TEPF funds, not general rates, and
 supports Burlington's EV adoption goals.
 The independently conducted Forestry report is included in the Commission packet and
 indicates compliance and positive feedback from suppliers about McNeil's contributions to
 sustainable practices.
 The Moduly battery pilot with 111 interested customers is set to launch following the PUC's
 October 15, 2025 deadline.
 Vermont maintains relatively low utility rates compared to New England, despite rising energy
 costs nationwide.
 Upcoming discussions will address the EV site license agreement and miscellaneous service
 fees, aiming for simultaneous approval from the Board of Finance and City Council.
 There is ongoing interest in tracking electricity demand and rates for better context in Vermont
 and beyond. Commissioner Kenney requested updates throughout the year.

August 2025 Financial Review
Ms. Stebbins-Wheelock presented inancial results for August 2025. The Department reported a net
loss for August of $346,000 compared to a budgeted net income of $2.28 million, primarily due to
the timing of Renewable Energy Credit (REC) revenues, which were budgeted to be received in
August but were received in September.
Capital spending year-to-date is under budget at approximately $700,000 against a $3 million
budget, with several projects including the Winooski 1 FERC licensing progressing on schedule.

Customer arrearages over 60 days currently stand at around $600,000, which is a concern. Mike
Kanarick, Manager of Customer Care, Communications, and Energy Services, is working with
General Manager Springer on an action plan for collecting past due payments. Commissioner Moody
requested updates be provided in upcoming meetings.

The debt service coverage ratio is 5.11, the adjusted debt service coverage ratio is 1.05, and the
Department had 142 days cash on hand including the $10 million line of credit.

Commissioner Kenney requested updates to the Net Zero Roadmap targets in the dashboard;
current materials are dated 2023. Ms. Stebbins-Wheelock will update materials for the November
meeting.
 2
FY25 Audit Report
Ms. Hurlbut acknowledged the Department’s accounting team for their diligent work in preparing
for the audit, which is crucial for success.

Ms. Bourget-Place shared that the audit is close to completion, pending responses to legal inquiries
and outstanding items related to actuarial studies for OPEB and pensions. KPMG anticipates issuing
an unmodi ied opinion, contingent upon inalizing necessary procedures and addressing open
questions. No signi icant issues were reported during the audit, with management doing an
excellent job in preparation and responses. A new accounting standard related to compensated
absences was adopted, re lecting minimal impact on the inancial statements.

Executive Session to discuss FY25 Audit Report
Commissioner Vota made the motion to find that premature general public knowledge regarding
the FY25 KPMG Audit would clearly place the Burlington Electric Department at a substantial
disadvantage per Title 1 VSA §313(a)(6) of the Vermont Statutes. Commissioner Moody seconded
the motion. Motion passes 4 ayes, 0 nays.

Commissioner Vota moved that the Commission enter into executive session to discuss the FY25
KPMG Audit under the provisions of Title1 VSA §313(a)(6) of the Vermont Statutes. Commissioner
Moody seconded the motion. Motion passes 4 ayes, 0 nays.

Executive session start time: 6:27pm
Executive session end time: 6:53pm

Triennial Customer Satisfaction Survey
Michael Moser from UVM Center for Rural Studies presented the triennial customer satisfaction
survey results, covering both residential and commercial customers.
 The survey includes mandated questions and additional inquiries to measure progress over the
 years, including new electri ication-related questions.
 The satisfaction study maintains respondent con identiality and gathered responses from BED’s
 residential and commercial customers.
 Overall satisfaction with Burlington Electric is slightly declining, particularly for commercial
 customers, in luenced by customer participation rates and changes in billing processes.
 Reliability of electrical service is the most important customer characteristic, consistently
 ranking higher than other factors such as rate concerns.
 Recent rate increases have raised customer concerns about affordability, compounded by rising
 costs in other areas like healthcare and groceries.
 Awareness of energy ef iciency programs is improving, but a signi icant percentage of
 respondents remain unaware, particularly among new customers.
 Customer demographics show a notable increase in electric vehicle ownership, indicating a
 trend toward higher adoption rates than the city average. 43% of respondents are waiting to
 replace their current vehicle before purchasing an EV or PHEV, while one-third feel the cost is


 3
 still too high despite rebates. 7% expressed complete disinterest in buying or leasing an electric
 vehicle, with a portion of the population in Burlington identifying as non-car owners.
 For residential cold climate heat pumps, one-third are not responsible for purchasing heating
 equipment, and 20% are waiting to replace their systems.
 Interest in utilizing heat pumps for both heating and cooling is declining, especially if operating
 costs remain high, with signi icant residential usage noted primarily for heating.
 Trust in the State of Vermont for energy information is declining, while trust in Ef iciency
 Vermont is increasing, and neighbors remain a trusted source.
 There is an ongoing effort to review survey results to enhance advertising strategies and
 communication about energy programs.
 Future discussions could include insights on arrearages and informal outreach opportunities to
 gather further data.

EV Charging License Agreement
Emily Stebbins-Wheelock and Munir Kasti presented a proposed electric vehicle (EV) charging
license agreement for the installation of BED-owned public charging stations on private
property. The agreement is modeled after the one in place with the University of Vermont and is
intended as a generic template for future installations. The Department is in discussions with the
owner of the Market 32/TJ Maxx shopping area and there may be other sites in the city where
private property is the best or only suitable location for chargers. The agreement outlines
responsibilities for maintenance and removal of chargers and addresses issues like snow removal
and parking enforcement. Commission approval is requested, although the agreement will not
entail a financial transaction.

Commissioner Moody made the motion to move that the Electric Commission approve and
recommend that the City Council approve the use of the proposed electric vehicle charging
infrastructure agreement as a generic site license agreement for BED-owned public EV charging
stations on private property. Commissioner Kenney seconded the motion. Motion passes, 4 ayes 0
nays.

Miscellaneous Service Fees
Emily Stebbins-Wheelock presented the proposed fee changes, including:
  A reduction of the initial service fee from $30 to $5 for returning customers and $15 for new
 customers.
  Other changes in various fees include an increase in the reconnection fee from $20 to $26
 and a rise in the temporary service fee from $535 to $882.
  New disconnection and reconnection fees will range from $577 to $885 based on service
 type
  The collection fee would be eliminated entirely.
  Estimated net increase in operating revenues is approximately $38,000, with revenues from
 new fees offsetting declining revenue from some fees decreasing.


 4
  Proposed changes aim to align more closely with costs, and a detailed cost analysis will
 accompany the proposal to the PUC.

Commissioner Kenney made the motion to move to recommend that the Board of Finance and City
Council authorize BED to submit the proposed changes to the miscellaneous service fee tariff to the
Vermont Public Utility Commission for approval. Commissioner Vota seconded the motion. Motion
passes, 4 ayes 0 nays.

IT Update
Emily Stebbins-Wheelock and Erica Ferland presented the following:
 The IT update provided a general overview of BED's IT environment.
 BED operates with three distinct IT networks: the business environment, Smart Grid network,
 and SCADA system.
 Signi icant initiatives include upgrading devices to Windows 11, implementing the Meter Data
 Management system, and transitioning to a new customer information system (CIS) and web
 portal.
 The projected timeline for major implementations includes CIS, IVR, and bill print systems in
 spring 2025 and the Financial Information System transition targeting July 1, 2027.
 The Department’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure system is expected to need replacement
 sometime in the next 3 to 8 years. The Department is monitoring meter failure rates to plan a
 timely replacement and avoid large-scale failures.
 Emily Stebbins-Wheelock to provide updates periodically throughout the year.

Executive Session - Cybersecurity
Commissioner Moody made the motion to find that premature general public knowledge regarding
cybersecurity would clearly place the Burlington Electric Department at a substantial disadvantage
per Title 1 VSA §313(a)(10) of the Vermont Statutes. Commissioner Vota seconded the motion.
Motion passes 4 ayes, 0 nays.

Commissioner Moody made the motion that the Commission enter into executive session to discuss
cybersecurity under the provisions of Title 1 VSA §313(a)(10) of the Vermont Statutes.
Commissioner Vota seconded the motion. Motion passes 4 ayes, 0 nays.

Executive session start time: 8:20pm
Executive session end time: 9:16pm

Commissioners’ Check-In
Commissioner Moody requested more information on the issue of arrearages and the status of a
planned mitigation strategy. General Manager Springer stated that:
  Staf ing challenges, including the loss of a customer care representative, affected outreach
 efforts, but have since been addressed with the addition of temporary staff.
  The team intends to focus more on outreach to help customers set up plans to make
 payments on their arrearages and will provide monthly progress updates.


 5
 There is concern about potential backsliding in the reduction of arrearages due to the
 winter prohibition on service disconnections for non-payment.
 The inability to disconnect may lead to decreased customer responsiveness and affect
 overall arrearage amounts.

Adjourn
Commissioner Moody made a motion to adjourn; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Vota;
Commission vote. Motion passes, 4 ayes 0 nays

The meeting of the Burlington Electric Commission adjourned at 9:20p.m.

Microsoft Teams transcript used to create minutes drafted by Elena Alexander, Board Clerk, and edited
by Mike Kanarick, Manager of Customer Care, Communications & Energy Services and Emily Stebbins-
Wheelock, CFO & Manager of Strategy and Innovation.

 Attest: _______________________________________________
 Elena Alexander, Board Clerk




 6