Committee hears bill limiting HOA bans on solar panels; debate centers on shared roofs, litigation costs and governance

Representative Michael Bell introduced House Bill 389 on Thursday, a measure that would prohibit homeowners associations from broadly banning rooftop solar while allowing associations to deny panels that fail to meet stated aesthetic criteria or are not on the home structure.

Bell said the bill is intended to prevent HOAs from blocking access to solar for homeowners while preserving some local aesthetic controls. The text allows HOAs to refuse a particular panel if it ‘‘doesn't fit the aesthetic of the community or it's not actually on the roof of the home structure or behind a privacy fence,’' according to the presenter.

Committee members pressed Bell and asked several procedural and policy questions. Representative Kelly asked how the homeowner would apply to their HOA and what recourse a homeowner would have if an HOA denied a request; Bell repeatedly answered that processes differ across associations and that disputes could be resolved in court under existing covenants and bylaws. Members explored a hypothetical in which HOA litigation costs — for example, a scenario cited in the hearing of a $100,000 litigation expense spread across 100 homes — could result in assessments that shift costs to all homeowners.

Several members raised broader governance issues. Representative Roman described difficulties in some neighborhoods where investor-owned properties and professional management companies make it hard to get quorum for covenant changes; she said that in parts of the state investor ownership and management-company control have impaired ordinary HOA processes. Others reiterated that buyers should review covenants and that HOA rules are private agreements but noted the Legislature has in other contexts regulated private contracts.

Shelby Purdue, representing the Georgia Community Associations Institute, testified against House Bill 389 as drafted. She said CAI does not oppose energy-efficiency or renewable-energy goals but that the bill's language risks permitting installations on common property and could create a mechanism whereby costs from one owner's actions are spread to all association members. CAI urged recognition of the governance and contractual obligations of community associations and said residents and boards are generally the best mechanism to implement energy policies locally.

Chair members said there are technical and substantive issues to address and that the subcommittee would not take further action on the bill during the current meeting. A motion to table the bill was made and briefly seconded but then withdrawn; the chair stated the bill would remain in committee and could be revisited next year. No roll-call vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript.

The hearing captured a mix of policy, consumer-protection and homeowner-governance concerns rather than a clearpath to immediate committee approval.