The state Senate poisons solar bill
We denounce poison pill amendments to the Community Solar Act tacked on by the state Senate before sending it to the House. Last-minute amendments disregarded the community while adding regulatory roadblocks and stripping away the market incentive for independent developers, further consolidating utility control over solar, destroying the vision of independent solar gardens blooming across the state.
The bill retains the “community” name, but amendments effectively strip all community benefits.
With no commitment to competition, Republicans joined Democrats in approving floor amendments proposed by Democratic Sens. Daniel Ivey-Soto and Katy Duhigg introducing regulatory roadblocks and excluded municipalities, schools, religious organizations from participating, making the development of community solar arrays more expensive and less profitable for any solar developer.
A very simple request that all people be able to better access solar energy through community solar was undermined and poisoned. Legislators took the “community” out of community solar in order to continue to bow to the whims of utility companies. We are disappointed to see community solar, a demand made by hundreds of youth in the state, be undermined by our own senators.
The intention of the community solar bill — developed over years and recently vetted through a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process — was to expand solar options for the people. The utilities have managed to insinuate themselves into the bill so they can own the systems, and they amended the bill to prohibit their largest customers from participating. Monopolistic, profit-hungry tendencies much? Thanks to a unanimous vote by the Senate Democrats — we now have a utility-controlled model of community solar.
Will the House be able to put the community back in community solar? We sure hope so.
What’s wrong with the amended bill
Poison pill 1: Utilities can own a “community solar” project. That defeats the whole purpose: A true community solar program means that a subscriber owns shares in the system, gets the electric-generated offset and gets the tax advantages. The term “community solar” has been around for more than a decade. In 20 states it refers to projects with shared ownership in which participants receive direct financial benefits, including reduced utility bills. A utility-owned solar array does not fit the definition of “community” solar.
Poison pill 2: It requires community solar projects to be subject to Public Regulation Commission regulation. If a community solar developer is subjected to the same conditions as a monopoly utility, they would need lawyers, regulatory experts and provide minimum data requirements for each project; this would be prohibitive at such a small scale of production. There is not enough “profit” built into these projects to afford this regulatory overlay and expense. We are not aware of any other community solar legislation in the country that requires PRC oversight of community solar projects.
Poison pill 3: It limits subscribers only to a residential retail customer or “a small commercial retail customer.” Who does this exclude? With no definition in the bill, these amendments practically prohibit nearly all state agencies; supermarkets; schools; larger fire departments; counties; places of entertainment; churches, mosques and synagogues; bowling alleys; and any large retail customer.
Poison pill 4: It would require proof in advance that community solar producers will not cause any cost to monopoly utilities. This is an impossibility and is meant to drag solar providers into endless and expensive court proceedings.
Poison pill 5: It would require every solar project include 30 percent low-income users. This simply narrows the opportunities for neighborhoods to create solar arrays.
Moving forward in the House, we hope the purposes of the community solar bill will be restored: rapid renewable deployment, local control and customer savings.
Eleanor Bravo chairs the board of New Energy Economy; Seneca Johnson is a 19-year-old activist and is a founder and spokeswoman for Youth United for Climate Crisis Action. She is a graduate of Santa Fe Indian School and is a freshman at Yale University. Paul Gibson, co-founder of Retake Our Democracy, contributed to this article.