Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears SB 379 to tighten licensing, financing and anti‑scam rules for rooftop solar
Summary
Senate Bill 379 would expand licensing and consumer protections for solar financers and installers, ban impersonation of government or utility agencies in marketing, and add guardrails so homeowners are not billed for systems that never become operational.
Senate Bill 379, introduced by Senator Fabian Donate, drew lengthy testimony on consumer scams and licensing gaps in Nevada’s rooftop solar market and a range of proposed changes to finance, licensing and marketing practices.
Donate said SB 379 would require certain financiers of distributed generation systems to obtain notice or licensure akin to installment lenders, curb deceptive sales practices, prohibit impersonation of government or utility entities, and create additional consumer protections so homeowners are not billed for non‑operational systems. “Solar scams have become so rampant that the state contractors board launched an investigation unit,” Donate said, and he read a constituent letter from a 72‑year‑old homeowner who said his system was never connected but he continued paying a lender.
Why it matters: witnesses, including the Nevada State Contractors Board, said complaints are high—257 solar complaints in FY 2023/24 and 183 so far in 2024/25—and that homeowners, including seniors and low‑income residents, have been left with incomplete systems while lenders continued billing. The bill builds on 2023’s SB 293 reforms and aims to close new workarounds used by bad actors.
Support and substance: the bill’s supporters included the Nevada State Contractors Board, the Nevada State AFL‑CIO, Sunrun, the Nevada Solar Association, local governments and economic development groups. Contractors Board Executive Officer David Behar described the board’s recent efforts—solar investigations unit, solar watch list, consumer checklists—and endorsed SB 379. Nevada Solar Association Chair Stephen Hamile and multiple local installers described scenarios in which installers abandoned projects after funding was secured and lenders began billing for incomplete systems.
Key stakeholder concerns and requested amendments: industry trade group SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association) testified in opposition on discrete points and sought clarifications. SEIA asked that the statute provide reasonable recourse before a system can be disabled for nonpayment (for example by counting missed payments or giving time for a customer to seek redress), that financing obligations not automatically transfer to a subsequent homebuyer without the financier’s ability to underwrite credit, and that utility interconnection timeframes be considered because interconnection delays are often outside the installer’s control. The bill’s proponents said they had posted an amendment and would work with stakeholders on those technical changes.
Other testimony: city and chamber representatives, labor organizations, consumer advocates and Sierra Club offered support, urging protections for seniors and transparency for door‑to‑door lead generation; several witnesses asked for explicit bans on impersonating government agencies or utilities in marketing. SEIA urged clearer language and technical fixes on disabling systems and on obligations when a home sells.
Process: committee counsel and proponent representatives answered technical questions about proposed caps on financier conduct and on how the bill would interact with the contractors board and the Attorney General’s office. Senators asked for specific drafting clarifications; testimony closed with proponents and opponents indicating ongoing discussions and proposed amendments. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.
