Lawmakers Hear ‘Do‑Not‑Knock’ Proposal, Privacy and Contractor Rules for Residential Solar

Representative Linehan testified in favor of HB 6052, calling it “the do‑not‑knock bill,” and urged action to curb door‑to‑door scams that target older residents. She said the bill would create a do‑not‑knock database, require companies that use door‑to‑door sales to check their contact lists against the registry, and require pre‑visit attestations and posted safety information in towns that are visited. “The do not knock list will empower consumers and weed out fraudsters from legitimate salespeople while keeping our residents safe,” Representative Linehan said.

Nut graf: The committee heard sustained testimony from consumer advocates, municipal officials and solar and contractor trade groups about a package of protections for people who receive unsolicited home‑sales visits. Proponents emphasized scams that pose public‑safety risks and target seniors; industry speakers supported many consumer protections but urged changes to timing, penalties, and operational details to avoid unforeseen burdens on legitimate businesses.

Supporters' case: Representative Linehan, AARP and the Connecticut Early Childhood Alliance (speaking in the public hearing on related bills) described rising incidents of door‑to‑door fraud, including imposter scams and resale schemes. Linehan said the registry would require companies to run planned canvassing lists against a municipal registry and to provide municipalities with an attestation seven days before a planned campaign. Senator Ciccarella and other members highlighted public‑safety benefits: officials could avoid unnecessary police responses to routine sales activity, while also knowing which firms have notified a town of upcoming visits.

Industry concerns and proposed fixes: Multiple solar firms and their trade groups — Trinity Solar, Sunnova, the Solar Energy Industries Association and others — backed many of the bill’s consumer‑protection goals but urged substantive edits. Their written and oral testimony asked for:

- A standardized brochure developed by a state agency (Department of Consumer Protection in consultation with stakeholders) rather than dozens of company‑prepared booklets; - Clarification of the “solar seller relationship” list so it does not require listing all employees, subcontractors and broad investor lists; - A narrower schedule and clear grace period for list updates (the bill as drafted required monthly company checks while the registry could be updated quarterly, industry witnesses said that misalignment could produce inadvertent violations); - A lower civil penalty that aligns with existing Home Solicitation Sales Act penalties (several witnesses suggested $500 instead of $20,000 per violation) and an administrative appeal process so companies can contest alleged violations; - Confirmation that constitutionally protected activities (for example volunteers, Girl Scouts, political canvassers and other free‑speech campaigning) would be exempt.

Consumer‑protection advocates pressed for stronger enforcement. Representatives and municipal officials said they want tools municipal governments can use — such as the ability to levy local fines by ordinance — and clear language making the registry usable and enforceable with citizen evidence (doorbell camera footage, phone records) identified by Representative Linehan and Senator Ciccarella.

Public safety and anti‑profiling: Witnesses raised two adjacent concerns. Representative Luxembourg asked whether a public registry might reduce racially motivated “suspicious‑person” calls; Representative Linehan said the registry could reduce that type of policing and also protect salespeople who are legitimately working in neighborhoods. Committee members asked witnesses whether background checks for door‑to‑door sales employees would be required; sponsors said employers would be expected to do hiring‑screening, and that the statute already allows for criminal history screening in limited cases while preserving “clean‑slate” restoration rules for applicants who have had convictions vacated.

Scope and next steps: Solar and home‑improvement groups asked that the bill apply to all door‑to‑door commerce rather than only solar, and they asked the committee to reestablish a stakeholder task force to finalize the brochure, notice timing, and appeal procedures. Several witnesses urged the committee to replace the proposed DCP fine levels and to include a clear municipal notification process that avoids duplicate filings in towns with existing canvassing permitting systems.

Ending: The committee did not vote on HB 6052 at the hearing; members asked staff to redraft several operational provisions and for sponsors and stakeholders to confer on penalties, registry update cadence and brochure language. Sponsors said they would provide amended language and asked the committee to consider a stakeholder working group to finalize the bill’s implementing details.