Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances solar successor bill after hours of debate about costs and process
Summary
The Energy and Technology Committee voted to move House Bill 5340 (renewable power generation) to the floor after lengthy debate over ratepayer costs, program design and process. Supporters said successor programs and storage incentives can lower peak costs; opponents warned of a multi‑decade public benefits charge.
The Energy and Technology Committee on May 8 voted to send House Bill 5340, a package to set a successor program for residential and distributed solar, to the House floor after an intense debate over cost, process and program design.
Chair State Representative Jonathan Steinberg said the bill aims to extend and refine existing incentive programs so they remain effective while minimizing impacts on ratepayers. "We have a responsibility to make sure that we minimize the impact on ratepayers as we extend this program," Steinberg said, describing options under consideration including budget targets, declining incentives and alternative funding mechanisms.
Opponents, led by Senator Fosio, urged defeat, arguing the bill would impose large long‑term costs on Connecticut electricity customers. "This will represent a very, very large future price tag for consumers," Fosio said, warning the measure could create "a billion plus dollar public benefit charge" over decades and urging refinements such as reverse auctions and year‑to‑year cost limits.
Supporters pushed back that successor programs are extensions — not wholesale replacements — of long‑standing incentives and that the proposals include changes (like reduced export rates and stronger storage incentives) intended to cut peak supply costs and reduce stranded projects. Representative Winter said adjusting export compensation and pairing solar with storage can "shift the power that's coming back on the grid to peak demand, where it's going to save ratepayers the most amount of money."
Members repeatedly requested greater detail on costs and implementation. Several Republicans and some Democrats described the bill as insufficiently finished for a short session, asking for more specific PURA guidance and clearer guardrails for siting, interconnection and environmental review. Steinberg and other backers said PURA's successor‑program study and forthcoming refinements will guide amendments before the bill reaches the floor, and they stressed an intent to make successor programs revenue‑neutral or lower in net cost.
After debate the committee voted to move HB 5340 to the floor; the clerk opened a roll call and chair Steinberg said votes would remain open until 5:00 p.m. for members who were temporarily absent. The committee also announced it would continue to work on language and clarifications before final floor action.
