Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves consumer-protection package for residential solar sales, including disclosures and warranty requirements
Summary
Senate Bill 299 would set standardized disclosures, require sales materials and certain warranties, bar unauthorized use of utility logos and require Spanish-language materials on request; committee adopted a technical amendment and rejected a mandatory-notice amendment before approving the bill 9–4.
The House Energy & Environment Committee voted May 20 to forward Senate Bill 299 with a favorable recommendation after extensive stakeholder testimony and a technical amendment removing an unintended contract-page limit.
Representative Brown, the bill sponsor, told the committee the proposal seeks to protect consumers buying residential solar by requiring standardized disclosures, clearer contract terms and limits on deceptive marketing, such as unauthorized use of utility logos. “This bill seeks to provide important consumer protection guardrails without creating any new regulatory burden on businesses,” Brown said.
The bill requires solar sales companies to provide standardized information to prospective customers — including contact details, warranty explanations and itemized disclosures about expected production and projected utility-bill impacts — and imposes a rescission period so buyers can cancel a contract within a short window. The sponsors said the rescission period and required disclosures aim to curb high-pressure door-to-door sales practices and give homeowners time to compare offers.
Industry and consumer groups who spoke in favor said the measure protects buyers and reputable installers. Casey Becker of the Colorado Solar and Storage Association said the association backed the measure as a way to set consistent expectations and curb misleading sales tactics. Jason Sharp of Namaste Solar said the bill “protects small businesses” by setting consumer expectations and creating a “cooling off” period for large purchases.
Stakeholders pressed sponsors on several specifics. Committee members asked how lenders and third-party financing fit into the disclosure regime; sponsors and industry witnesses said the bill applies to the party that is a signatory to the sales or financing agreement and that lenders who are parties to an agreement must provide financing terms. The committee also debated language on language access: the bill requires that sales presentations and a consumer disclosure form be offered in Spanish when requested, and permits a consumer to request presentations in other languages.
Two amendments were considered. The committee adopted L005, a technical change that removed an unintended four-page limit on contracts. A proposed amendment (L008) that would have required certified notification by mail or electronic means to affected parties was rejected by the committee; sponsors argued it would create a costly, burdensome process and could trigger a fiscal note.
The committee then voted 9–4 to advance the bill with the adopted technical amendment. Sponsors said they intend to continue outreach to the industry and to community groups so businesses and consumers understand the new statutory requirements before implementation.
