Committee debates consumer protections for residential solar; roll call ends in tie and sponsor asked to refine bill

Senator Duhigg presented a bill to prohibit a set of repeated, predatory practices by some residential solar sellers, especially door‑to‑door installers whose sales tactics have generated consumer complaints and enforcement actions. The sponsor framed the bill as pro‑solar but targeted at bad actors, and introduced an amendment to prohibit sales representatives from asserting that a consumer is “guaranteed” a federal or state tax credit unless the seller has documented, written calculations showing the consumer’s eligibility.

Consumer‑protection attorney Rob Treinen detailed recurring abuses: sellers creating email accounts to evade delivery of contract documents to reluctant consumers, falsely representing government or utility affiliation, falsely guaranteeing tax credits to buyers without examining tax liability, use of powers of attorney to complete applications, and leaving installed systems unoperational while finance companies continued billing and reporting to credit agencies. The sponsor and witnesses explained the bill’s protectionary measures: permit requirements for salespeople, prohibition on false government or utility affiliation claims, prohibition on fabricating an email to receive contract notices, a consumer right to a paper copy of the contract, limits on using powers of attorney for these transactions, and an operational‑status rule that restrained reporting or collection if a system remained nonoperational for 180 days after installation (the timeframe was amended from 90 to 180 days after industry feedback).

PNM testified in support, saying the bill strengthens protections for customers who connect solar to the utility grid. The Renewable Energy Industries Association (REIA) supported some goals but opposed provisions it said would sweep in innocent third‑party lenders, permit the return of funds where the system is nonoperational through no contractor fault, and create a broad private right of action rather than relying on the Unfair Practices Act.

Stakeholders debated whether the bill’s protections should be limited to out‑of‑state firms or applied to all sellers, and several committee members said they were worried the private right of action and fee provisions could invite meritless lawsuits. A roll‑call on a do‑pass motion produced a tie; the chair said he preferred the sponsor come back with a committee substitute after working with opponents to narrow ambiguous liability language and address concerns about who is qualified to give tax advice. The bill was not advanced that day; senators urged further drafting to reduce unintended consequences while targeting bad actors.