Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear split testimony on SB 188, the 'Montana Solar Shares' bill
Summary
Supporters said SB 188 would expand access to community solar and attract private investment; utilities warned it could impose administrative burdens and shift costs to non‑subscribers. The PSC would set bill‑credit rules if the committee advances the bill.
Sen. Chris Pope, sponsor of Senate Bill 188, told the House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee the Montana Solar Shares Act is "enabling legislation" intended to open a voluntary market for shared solar projects of up to 5 megawatts and "unleash[] private investment." He said the bill requires no public subsidy and carries "no fiscal note."
Opponents — principally investor‑owned and regional utilities — urged caution. Alan Olson, director of government affairs for Northwestern Energy, said the measure "requires us to do all the bookkeeping" and warned software and tracking costs could fall to ratepayers. He cited software work for net‑metering upgrades and asked that owners, not utilities, handle subscriber accounting.
Mike Green, representing Montana Dakota Utilities, called SB 188 "physically and practically unworkable," saying a 5‑megawatt cap could produce projects that exceed distribution capabilities and create economic mismatches if retail‑style compensation is required; he cautioned the bill risks "windfalls" for developers paid at retail rates while other customers absorb costs.
Proponents from the solar and conservation communities said shared solar is a widely used, distribution‑connected tool that expands access to customers who cannot host rooftop systems. McKenna Sellers of the Montana Renewable Energy Support Association and Matthew Hargarten with CCSA described programs that let renters and small businesses buy subscriptions and receive bill credits, arguing the Public Service Commission (PSC) will set fair compensation. Hargarten said successful community solar programs in other states typically keep administrative and distribution charges reflected in the PSC's rate‑making process.
Local experience shaped some testimony. Scott Sweeney, former general manager of Fergus Electric, said his cooperative sold out two distribution‑level community arrays (about 400 kW) and found the administrative work manageable once systems were established. Proponents also emphasized jobs, land‑lease revenues for farmers and ranchers, and private capital that developers said they would deploy only if subscriptions proved viable.
The PSC's Trevor Graff told lawmakers the commission has discretion under the bill to set the bill‑credit rate in rule‑making; that could be retail, wholesale or an avoided‑cost approach, and the commission would likely analyze benefits and costs when setting a methodology. Several representatives pressed witnesses on who pays interconnection and upgrade costs; sponsor Sen. Pope and proponents repeatedly said the facility owner or developer would bear equipment and interconnection costs required to meet safety and reliability standards.
No formal action was taken during the hearing. The committee recessed after the sponsor's closing remarks and prepared to hear other business.
