Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Net Energy Metering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances SB202 with amendments after divided testimony on net energy metering
Summary
The joint Senate committee passed SB202 with amendments that remove member‑owned cooperatives from the bill and let the Public Utilities Commission set compensation rates; utility representatives warned of equity impacts while clean‑energy groups urged retention of net energy metering benefits.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, meeting jointly with other committees on Feb. 4 in Room 016, advanced Senate Bill 202, a measure addressing net energy metering (NEM), after hearing extended testimony for and against the bill.
Supporters and opponents told senators the bill would have wide consumer and grid implications. Kaʻiulani Shin Sato, speaking on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, said the utility “respectfully oppose[s] SB202,” arguing the bill “would effectively do away with the forfeiture feature of the NEM program” and that the feature “benefits all of our customers, including customers who live in condos or who don't have rooftop PV or who are struggling to pay the electric bills.”
Why it matters: NEM rules determine how rooftop solar owners are credited for energy they export to the grid; changes can affect solar economics for both participants and non‑solar customers. The committee’s adopted amendments change who is covered and how compensation is set, leaving some distributional and regulatory questions for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Committee members heard multiple public witnesses in support. Sherry Pollock of 350 Hawaii said, “Net energy metering is one of the things that makes solar affordable for these families,” and argued that rooftop solar has broad benefits such as cleaner air and grid resilience. A representative from Greenpeace, identified in testimony as Dave Melinex, described personal and research‑based evidence that rooftop solar can be economically accessible to moderate‑income households. Henry Curtis of Life of the Land testified with concerns about individual cases he described as creating an unfair windfall.
After discussion, the committee adopted a package of amendments before passing the measure. The amendments recorded in committee action remove member‑owned electric cooperatives from the bill, direct that the PUC determine compensation rates rather than setting the retail rate in statute, and incorporate technical suggestions from the attorney general. The chair summarized the changes as: remove member‑owned cooperatives from coverage; change statutory language that set retail rate to allow the PUC to set the rate; and adopt AG‑recommended clarifications.
Votes at committee: the recommendation to pass SB202 with amendments was adopted. The transcript records the chair voting aye, the vice chair voting aye, and Senators DeCoite, Richards and Fevella as voting aye. The clerk counted multiple written testimonies: the record included dozens in support and a small number in opposition.
What remains uncertain: The measure delegates compensation‑rate setting to the PUC and removes certain entity types from coverage; those regulatory determinations and any equity impacts will be decided administratively and are not specified in the bill text adopted in committee. The committee did not specify an implementation schedule in the hearing.
Looking ahead: SB202 moves to the next step in the legislative process with the committee’s amendments. The PUC and stakeholders will be the principal actors in implementing the key rate and program design decisions the bill refers to.
