Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rooftop Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill restricting HOA rules that raise solar costs or cut efficiency
Summary
Senate Bill 98 would bar covenants, conditions and restrictions that increase the cost of solar installations by more than 10% or $1,500 or that reduce solar efficiency by more than 10%; supporters said the change removes ambiguous HOA barriers to rooftop and ground‑mounted solar and the committee voted to report the bill 5–4.
The sponsor introduced Senate Bill 98 to clarify the state’s Solar Rights Act and to set quantitative limits on homeowner‑association and other covenants that seek to restrict solar installations.
Under the proposed language, covenants, deed restrictions or municipal rules would be unenforceable if they increase a consumer’s cost to purchase or install a solar collector by more than 10% or $1,500 (whichever applies) or if they reduce the system’s operational efficiency by more than 10%. The bill also would permit a prevailing party in litigation to recover attorney fees.
Susan March, a Santa Fe County homeowner, described a case where her north‑facing roof and lot geometry made rooftop panels impractical and left land‑mounted panels visible from the street; she said HOA architectural controls denied a covenant change and she had to seek a variance. Renewable‑energy industry groups, conservation organizations and advocacy groups — including the Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico, the Sierra Club’s Rio Grande chapter, 350 New Mexico, and the League of Women Voters — voiced support. They said the bill would provide clearer, objective rules for owners and HOAs and reduce costly litigation.
Senators who have architectural or aesthetic concerns said they respect neighborhood design choices and noted HOAs frequently adopt covenants at subdivision formation; supporters said homeowners do not always discover restrictive covenants at purchase and that rules can have outsize effect on small lots without room for non‑rooftop installations.
Action: The committee voted to report Senate Bill 98 favorably by a 5–4 roll call vote.
