Connecticut solar bill could change rooftop and balcony power rules

HARTFORD — After months of hearings, committee arguments, closed-door talks and redrafts of legislation that would direct development of residential, agricultural and corporate solar power over the next nine years, the state Senate approved the bill just ahead of the late-night Wednesday adjournment deadline.

The legislation, which passed the House last week, would extend existing solar programs administered by the Public Utility Regulatory Authority to make them effective from now until 2035. The goals are affordability and to reduce the controversial “public benefits” charge on consumer bills. The bill also addresses concerns about safety in dealing with solar generation and storage that is hampering the growth of residential solar.

The bill was approved after two hours and 20 minutes of debate in a 27-9 vote and next heads to Gov. Ned Lamont.

“This legislation ensures Connecticut’s families can choose to reduce their electric bills and save money by going solar,” said Chris Phelps, state director of the nonprofit Environment Connecticut, who watched the debate from the Senate gallery. “This legislation helps families pair their solar panels with batteries to reduce their electric bills even further.” 

The bill also would protect homeowners with rooftop solar systems to receive compensation from their electric utilities for excess energy produced from their roofs. It also would promote small, portable plug-in solar collectors – called “balcony solar” – for those unwilling or unable to install rooftop systems.

The debate was framed by Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, co-chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, and his chief foil, the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich. The GOP gubernatorial candidate’s criticism of the bill had echoes of a campaign speech, charging the Democratic majorities in the General Assembly and Democratic governor with responsibility for the state’s high cost of energy.

Needleman kicked off the debate with a 5-minute summation, followed by Fazio’s first 45-minute counter argument, culminating in a prediction that if the bill passed, the controversial public benefits charges would soar, despite what Needleman noted was the reduced additional charges on monthly bills since the start of May.

“This builds on the success of our current programs while maintaining our dedication to lowering the costs of all these programs for Connecticut ratepayers,” Needleman said. “The majority of the people in our state support the broad long-term goals of cleaner air and water, energy use that is sensitive to the impacts of climate change and an overall cleaner environment. However, what needs to be embedded in these ideas and what drives our work on the Energy Committee is the real-time impacts that our policies have on our people.”

Fazio then offered the first GOP amendment, which would have entirely ended the public benefits charges, which total about $13 on a $130 monthly residential bill.

“We do have a fundamental disagreement on this,” Needleman said, stressing he has worked to revive nuclear power in the state, but solar, wind and hydro power are generally free from the global commodities market. “Saying no to this amendment is important.”

Fazio’s proposal failed along party lines 25-11. Five other amendments offered by Fazio and one submitted by Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, similarly failed in the Senate, which has a 25-11 majority.

With the end of the session just hours away, any amendment passed in the Senate would have sent the bill back to the House, threatening its failure.

“The point is that state policies are clearly, have clearly and will clearly continue to drive up the cost of electricity by billions of dollars more than necessary without providing clear benefits to the public, and continue to starve our economy of economic growth and investment into the future,” Fazio said.

While stressing that he doesn’t favor one power source over others, Fazio said subsidizing renewables creates unacceptable costs for ratepayers.

“Like any other industry and like any other companies in our economy, they should compete and grow on their own merits rather than be subsidized at the direction of the state government through implicit taxes on residents who cannot afford to pay so many of their bills as is,” he said.

The legislation would require state officials to consider rules on the safe installation of so-called plug-in photovoltaic panels. Another section of the bill, in reaction to fires that have occurred at solar arrays in the state, requires companies that have state Siting Council certificates to generate or store solar energy to report major and minor incidents. It also requires an annual report to the Energy and Technology Committee. Fazio particularly targeted clean-energy and climate-change efforts, including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 

Late last Friday night, after a nearly three-hour debate, the House voted 99-43 in favor of the legislation. Republicans led by Rep. Tracy Marra of Darien warned ratepayers will get saddled with the cost of $85 million a year for 10 years of subsidies, pumping up the already controversial public benefits charges on customer bills.

“Clearly this is something that will be on the bills of ratepayers in the state of Connecticut,” said Marra, who is in her second two-year term.

But Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, co-chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, said customer bills are bound to be lower. He called the bill “slow-and-steady” progress in the realm of residential solar, especially in older houses at a time when UL Solutions, formerly Underwriter Laboratories, is still engaged in developing the safest technology for battery storage.

“To my mind this is a critically important bill,” Steinberg said. “Storage is such a key component.”

In related developments on Wednesday night, the General Assembly completed action on Lamont’s nominee to lead PURA. Thomas Wiehl, who will be the chairman, previously served as the legal and regulatory director for the state Office of Consumer Counsel.

Wiehl replaces former PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett, who resigned after a controversial tenure and struggled to win reappointment last year.

Other PURA commissioner nominees confirmed by the legislature include Everett Smith III of Greenwich; Holly Cheeseman, a former state House member from East Lyme; and Janice Beecher of New Britain, a retired academic and director emeritus of the Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State University. All four nominees had served on an interim basis since October.

Staff writer Paul Hughes contributed to this report.