House debate over bill to sunset Minnesota community solar law draws wide testimony; committee lays bill over

Chair Cyzwinski moved House File 2,793 before the Minnesota House Committee on Energy Finance and Policy on March 25, 2025, seeking to sunset the state's community solar garden (CSG) statute and limit future renewals of CSG contracts. The committee also considered an A-1 author's amendment that sets dates and grandfathering language for existing projects; the amendment passed by voice vote.

Deputy Commerce Commissioner Pete Wyckoff testified against the repeal, calling it premature. Wyckoff said the department's administration of the updated low- and moderate-income (LMI) CSG program shows it is “delivering benefits to the state now” and urged legislators to let a two-year experiment ordered by the 2023 legislature continue. He told the committee Commerce has approved about 81 megawatts of capacity under the new program, with nearly 10 megawatts already generating; approved projects in the 2024 program year are projected to serve more than 62% low- and moderate-income households and about 75% when accounting for affordable housing and other priority subscribers. Wyckoff also said the state has been awarded $64,000,000 in federal Solar for All funds that would be at risk if the program were sunset prematurely.

Multiple developers, local operators and community advocates testified strongly against the proposal. Ralph Koehler, a lifelong family farmer and principal owner of Novel Energy Solutions, urged a “no” vote and argued CSGs deliver savings to subscribers and economic benefits to rural communities. Alan Campbell, a Minneapolis condominium resident who subscribes to a garden, said a third-party cost-benefit analysis required by the 2023 law found community solar provides net benefits through jobs, land-lease payments and monthly bill savings for participants — he cited estimated savings of $7–$10 per month for low-income participants.

Industry witnesses warned of investor uncertainty and potential financial harm from retroactive or early changes. Representatives of community solar developers and trade groups said many owners made investments based on the program's previously stated 25-year tenure. Kristin Fornes of NGI North America said the company owns 42 megawatts of community solar in Minnesota and noted that subscribers and landowners have long-term contracts; she warned that ending the program early could strand investments, prompt litigation and send a negative signal to investors.

Supporters of the sunset, including bill author Chair Cyzwinski, framed the bill as rebalancing the state's role and allowing utilities and markets to compete to meet the state's 100% clean electricity by 2040 policy. Chair Cyzwinski said the A-1 amendment would close the existing program at the end of the fiscal year (July 1, 2025), allow community solar gardens operating as of July 28 to continue under existing administration and prevent contracts from being renewed for additional multi-decade terms.

Xcel Energy's representative, Rick Evans, urged caution and emphasized that the CSG product is more expensive than other solar alternatives the utility could acquire; he said the fuel-clause price passed through to customers for community solar is “nearly double” other market solar prices and that the trade-off between cost and equity merits discussion. Evans also said purchased power like community solar is a normal part of utility procurement but noted that the original uncapped program and early pricing caused rapid and high-cost deployment that affected customer bills.

Other testifiers emphasized equity and practical access: Cooperative Energy Futures said the program is a rare direct tool to lower bills for renters, manufactured-home residents and low-income households; Minneapolis Climate Action said community solar helps historically overburdened communities participate in the clean-energy transition; and the Coalition for Community Solar Access and others said Minnesota's approach is a national model adopted by other states.

Committee members pressed authors and witnesses on contract continuity and renewal mechanics. The bill's author stated that existing signed contracts would be honored through their current terms, but the amendment would bar renewing or extending contracts beyond the dates permitted by the bill; members requested clarification on so-called "evergreen" provisions and on which agreements would be permitted to continue. Several members argued the 2023 reforms addressed past program shortcomings and that the Commerce cost-benefit study estimated overall net benefits (the department's report cited a multi-billion dollar net benefit over the expected program lifetime in committee discussion).

After two hours of testimony and questions, the committee adopted the A-1 author's amendment by voice vote and laid House File 2,793 over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill. Lawmakers and witnesses remained sharply divided on whether the program should be ended, with proponents of the sunset citing long-term rate impacts and critics warning of harm to subscribers, developers, landowners and Minnesota's clean-energy industry.