Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee reviews ‘Renewable Energy for Communities’ community-solar program in H.289
Summary
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee walked through language in H.289 that would create a Renewable Energy for Communities program, direct utilities to solicit distributed renewable projects, and charge the Public Utility Commission with program design and oversight, including equity and community participation goals.
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on March 14 reviewed language in H.289 that would establish a Renewable Energy for Communities program to solicit distributed renewable generation through retail electricity providers.
Ellen Tchaikovsky, Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the bill would “establish the Renewable Energy for Communities program” and require the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to develop program principles and a solicitation framework that retail electricity providers would use to contract with community projects.
The committee was shown that the program would target small, local distributed generation, defined in the bill as resources less than 5 megawatts and capable of connecting to the transmission grid. The bill directs retail electricity providers to issue periodic solicitations and allows the PUC to determine what percentage of each utility’s Tier 2 requirement must come from projects procured under the program.
Supporters’ stated objectives in the bill include delivering benefits to customers who have faced inequitable access to renewable energy, supporting community participation and governance of distributed projects, directing benefits to tenants in affordable housing and to municipal and school buildings, and advancing local workforce and other community benefits. The language calls for the PUC to consider non-cost factors in solicitations, including community support and location constraints, and to require consistent review criteria across utilities.
The bill gives the PUC flexibility about how it implements the program; the Office of Legislative Council explained the PUC could implement it by rule, order, or contract. Tchaikovsky noted the practical differences: rules require a formal Administrative Procedure Act process with public hearings and a longer timeline, while PUC orders may be issued more quickly and do not carry the same statutory public-hearing steps.
The bill sets an implementation deadline for the PUC: it must implement the Renewable Energy for Communities program by January 1, 2027. The PUC must consult a broad set of stakeholders in program development, including industry, utilities, environmental advocates, state and local government, municipalities experiencing high energy burden, renters and multifamily affordable-housing representatives, and environmental-justice-focused communities identified in statute.
Committee members asked for more detail about how solicitations would be coordinated across utilities, how utilities already at 100% renewable would be treated, and whether the program would function differently by utility territory. Tchaikovsky recommended the committee hear administration witnesses to explain the policy intent and operational details the bill relies on.
The committee did not take action. Members said they will call in the Department of Public Service and other parties to provide detailed testimony on design choices, how solicitations would be run, and how the PUC should balance rules-versus-orders authority.
