Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Passive Dispatch topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tesla, GoodLeap and contractors urge PURA to retain passive-dispatch option or preserve a larger upfront incentive
Summary
Major market participants warned PURA that eliminating the passive-dispatch/upfront-incentive option could slow residential and third-party-owner participation, and asked for optionality or a phased transition tied to final successor tariff and ITC timing.
Tesla, third-party owners and contractor representatives told PURA they opposed a wholesale removal of the ESS passive-dispatch track or a sharp reduction in the upfront enrollment incentive without more time for the market to respond to recent program changes.
Why it matters: Removing or sharply reducing a known upfront incentive risks slowing adoption, stakeholders said, particularly as federal homeowner ITC eligibility and supply-chain rules are in flux. Several participants urged optionality rather than a single-path program design.
Tesla said it supports the program but urged regulators to preserve optionality for customers: both the enrollment/upfront incentive tied to a passive (daily) dispatch track and the proposed pay-for-performance structure can attract different customer segments. "We prefer the optionality," Dominic Gotti, energy policy analyst at Tesla, said in the meeting, arguing that some customers seek immediate upfront reductions while others will accept longer-term payments.
Tesla also urged regulators not to cancel the passive track now because program changes made late last year have not had time to propagate through the market. Tesla presented examples from other jurisdictions where daily/weekday dispatch programs achieved 80%-plus participation rates and said Connecticut could see similar outcomes if the recently revised passive rules are given a full season to work.
GoodLeap, a third-party owner and financing provider, urged preserving a robust upfront payment, citing market evidence that a strong enrollment payment increases contractor willingness to sell storage and raises customer uptake. "Strong upfront incentives are what create immediate clarity and confidence for both customers and installers," Annie Batzka, vice president of virtual power plans at GoodLeap, said during the meeting. GoodLeap told PURA it is launching a TPO offer for Connecticut and said stable, predictable incentives are crucial for third-party owners that assume asset and credit risk.
Contractors and several commenters in the public comment period echoed those concerns. A contractor representative said uptake takes time: contractors must update sales scripts, train staff, and revise customer collateral; sales today translate into installs months later. One contractor warned that rapid program shifts risk repeating adoption slowdowns that followed prior program transitions.
Stakeholders also asked PURA to link any removal of the upfront incentive to the broader successor tariff docket (Docket 25-0214) that could change net-metering or time-of-use signals. Several participants suggested delaying major incentive design changes until any successor tariff is clearer to avoid a 'cliff' effect that could reduce customer demand.
Ending note: Multiple market participants urged PURA to preserve optionality or to adopt a phased approach that aligns with federal tax-credit timing and successor tariff outcomes. Several said they would support direct-pay or financing solutions if the Green Bank's proposals were adopted and adequately capitalized.
