Senate committee amends solar net‑metering bill but declines to pass it after members seek more time

Senate Bill 145, sponsored by Senator Dave Wallace, prompted an extended committee hearing that showcased deep divisions among utilities, cooperatives, county officials, solar advocates and large corporate users. The bill would allow third-party purchasing and leasing of solar, raise the system-size cap (testimony referenced an increase to 1 megawatt from an earlier quoted threshold), and—via an amendment placed on the table—set a framework for how the Public Service Commission would calculate compensation for surplus generation. The amendment uses avoided-cost pricing as a base and contemplates adding demonstrable benefits subject to a cap (testimony described a 40% cap above avoided cost), while preserving PSC authority to resolve detailed rate methodology.

Ted Thomas, chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, told senators the amendment aims to move rate disputes out of appellate courts and into a PSC rate-making process where data can be vetted; he described the primary fight as between two methodologies ("two‑channel billing" that credits avoided cost and "monthly netting") and emphasized protecting low‑income consumers (repeatedly framed as protecting "grandma's electric bill"). Utilities' witnesses (Paul Means, Tom Bryce, Lori Burrows) said current net metering sometimes results in credits far above avoided cost (examples given in testimony ranged from ~3¢ avoided cost up to ~10¢ retail credits), which they called a subsidy shifted to nonparticipants. Opposing witnesses—including county representatives, Walmart, Arkansas Advanced Energy and some co‑ops—said the bill expands access (allowing governmental entities and nonprofits to use third‑party financing), supports economic development and job creation, and would enable larger, on‑site projects important to employers.

After receiving seven public presenters for and against the amendment, the committee adopted the on‑table amendment by voice vote. Senators then considered a motion to pass the bill as amended; several members, including Senator Chesterfield and Senator Elliott, said they had not read the full amended text and wanted the measure engrossed and returned for review. On the subsequent voice vote the "no's have it," and the motion to pass the amended bill failed. The chair said the sponsor may bring the bill back at the next committee meeting.

The hearing recorded technical policy points to be revisited: (1) whether the PSC should have mandatory standards or optional discretion in changing compensation methodology (the transcript records contested language, "may" vs "shall"), (2) how to quantify and cap added benefits above avoided cost, and (3) opt‑out language for municipal utilities that would permit local net‑metering programs. Committee members urged staff and sponsors to provide an engrossed, consolidated text before further action.