Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rooftop solar consumer-protection bill fails in Senate; sponsors later request recall from House to fix timing inconsistency
Summary
Senate debate over HB 215, which would require copies of contracts and a 7-day cancellation period for rooftop solar installations, split the chamber. The bill failed on the floor (14–12) earlier; later on the day the Senate voted to request the House recall the bill to address an internal timing inconsistency between installation timing and consumer protections.
Senators debated House Bill 215, a measure targeting consumer protections in the rooftop solar market that would require solar retailers to provide customers with signed agreements in electronic and paper form, prohibit beginning installation until seven days after providing the signed agreement and grant customers a seven-day cancellation period.
Sponsor Senator Sandle explained that the 7-day waiting period was the negotiated compromise to ensure consumers have time to review contracts without unduly delaying installers, and he said the industry was not opposed on the floor. "It prohibits beginning installation until 7 days after providing the signed agreement and it provides the customer with the 7 day cancellation period," he said.
The Senate recorded a close roll-call on the second substitute; the bill failed on the floor with a reported tally of 14 yea, 12 nay, and 3 absent. Later in the session Senator Bramble moved to suspend the rules and request that the House recall HB 215 because of an internal conflict between the construction/installation timing provisions and the Deceptive Sales Practices Act timing. The Senate approved the motion to request recall by the necessary supermajority; floor leaders said they will await the House—s response.
Senators who opposed the bill on the floor said they were concerned either about the consumer timing language or possible conflicts with other statutes; those in favor emphasized protecting consumers from high-pressure sales and giving customers a meaningful cancellation window.
