Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local resident urges Bowling Green council to ban a $4 monthly rooftop-solar penalty
Summary
At a council meeting a resident, Joe Dear, asked elected officials to pass a citizen-drafted ordinance banning solar-specific monthly fees and other penalties, saying the charge has discouraged installations and noting a lawsuit over the penalty is underway.
Joe Dear, a Bowling Green resident who said he ran for mayor, told the council he and others used an AI review of the municipal code to draft an ordinance that would prohibit solar-specific monthly fees and other penalties imposed by the municipal utility board.
"When this rule was put into place...we were told at the time there were about 10 installations...the last time we asked for numbers from the city, they told us there were nine," Dear said, arguing the charge has suppressed rooftop solar growth in Bowling Green. He added that "Leatra Harper has sued the city" over the penalty and said the city has spent "tens of thousands of dollars" defending the policy in court.
Dear told council members the ordinance repeats language recognizing the city's support for renewable and distributed energy and would "prohibit monthly fees, solar specific capacity charges, standby or backup power requirements or minimum bill increases," allowing rooftop systems the same grid access as other energy sources. "It basically just says you can't put a search charge or any sort of penalty on a rooftop solar installation," he said, and inserted an emergency clause in the draft so the body could consider immediate action if it chose.
A council member responded by pointing to the city charter provisions assigning rate-setting duties to the Board of Public Utilities, quoting the charter language that the board "shall be the duty of the board of public utilities to...fix rates," and said any council move would need legal review. Another council member noted the ordinance the speaker referenced would not, in their view, "go against the city charter" because it reiterates the board's authority while asserting that board rules must not be repugnant to city ordinances.
The council did not vote on the citizen-drafted ordinance during the meeting; members said they would refer questions to the city attorney for clarification about authority and charter language. Dear urged action, saying removing the charge would increase household energy resilience and align with Bowling Green's sustainability goals.
The council did not formally direct staff to adopt the proposed language at this meeting; a city attorney review was requested before any action.
