Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Bill Sb1560 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solar industry warns SB 15‑60 would “decimate” Connecticut solar market; utilities and advocates push other reforms
Summary
At a lengthy Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee hearing, solar developers and installers told lawmakers Senate Bill 15‑60’s changes to net metering and the public benefits charge would sharply reduce rooftop solar deployment and cost jobs, while utilities and consumer groups argued the bill could provide meaningful bill relief if restructured.
Solar contractors, developers and the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club told the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee that Senate Bill 15‑60, if enacted in its current form, would sharply reduce residential and commercial rooftop solar in Connecticut and threaten thousands of local jobs.
Steve Stefanou of Manchester (testifying for the town) and multiple residential installers — including Tim Schneider (Earthlight Technologies), Ed Merrick (Trinity Solar), Joshua Kekak (Solar Ship Corp), Steven Pelton, and others — told legislators the bill’s proposals to change net‑metering credits and to shift major program funding away from a per‑kilowatt‑hour public benefits charge would make many solar business models impossible. “If this bill is passed, it will put us, as well as most solar companies, completely out of business,” Tim Schneider said, citing California’s NEM‑3 experience.
Those witnesses urged the committee to proceed slowly: several suggested the bill is being advanced too quickly at the end of the session and that the state should first implement smart metering and time‑of‑use rates, strengthen program design, and work with industry so solar and storage can support the grid without causing cost shifts. Solar business owners said many low‑ and moderate‑income homeowners currently benefit from solar installations and could be shut out by immediate changes.
Utilities, large generators and consumer advocates took a different view. Eversource and United Illuminating representatives supported major elements of the bill that would remove public‑benefit costs from utility bills and finance them through state bonding or a newly created Connecticut Energy Procurement Authority (CEPA). Eversource offered an analysis estimating reducing the public benefits portion of a typical residential bill could lower customers’ monthly bills by roughly $40–55, while also arguing that declining energy sales and rising program costs are straining the existing funding model for efficiency, low‑income assistance and other programs.
Environmental and clean‑energy advocates including the Sierra Club and Environment Connecticut urged caution with several provisions: they opposed classifying existing nuclear generation as Class I renewable in the RPS and warned that removing the public benefits charge from bills could jeopardize stable funding for energy efficiency and low‑income programs. Several witnesses urged that if bonding is used for arrearage or certain storm costs, it should be targeted and subject to oversight.
Why it matters: SB 15‑60 is a wide‑ranging proposal that would remake how Connecticut buys electricity and funds clean‑energy and low‑income programs. Witnesses on both sides told lawmakers the bill could either provide substantial rate relief or, if enacted hastily, undermine the state’s solar workforce and the stability of programs that lower costs for vulnerable ratepayers.
