House votes to raise solar energy caps
The solar energy installation at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock is the kind of project that could be impacted by an increase in solar caps.
PHOTO/COURTESY
The House easily passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at fostering continued growth of the solar industry in Massachusetts despite stinging critiques by advocates and developers of solar energy that the bill does not go far enough.
The House passed the bill (H 3857) by a 150-2 vote on the penultimate day of formal sessions for the year, setting up what could be a frenzied back-and-forth on Wednesday with the Senate. Despite the obvious challenges to arriving at a deal between the branches before the recess, the Senate's point-person on energy, Sen. Benjamin Downing, said his goal remains getting a bill to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.
The solar bill passed by the House would lift the cap on the amount of public and privately generated solar power that can be sold back to the grid at retail rates by 2 percent for both categories. It also directs the Department of Public Utilities to develop a fair minimum bill for solar producing customers to help offset utility costs of maintaining transmission and distribution infrastructure.
"I still need to better understand everything the House adopted on their side, but I'm hopeful that we can get something done tomorrow," Downing said, acknowledging "significant differences" between the branches on their approaches to the net metering caps. The Senate passed a bill in July that would lift the cap to 1,600 megawatts, slightly higher than the House's proposal and consistent with the state's goal for installed solar capacity.
Rep. Thomas Golden, the House chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, said that the state is currently in a "holding pattern" on solar projects and that the bill would allow the solar industry to continue to grow.
"Why we're here today is because over a year ago this was extremely contentious, the committee worked on this for close to 10 months, and many of you have been in my office with folks that are extremely concerned about this," Golden said on the House floor. "Truthfully, I believe this is a very, very balanced approach. But some people just aren't going to be happy with any type of change at all."
Though only two Democrats voted against the bill - Reps. Denise Provost of Somerville and Jonathan Hecht of Watertown - a handful of members proposed and later withdrew amendments that would have gone further to either lift or eliminate caps on solar net metering. Some of those representatives, including Rep. Thomas Calter of Kingston, said that they withdrew their amendments because Golden gave his word that he would bring the issue before the House again early in 2016.
Calter, who had proposed an amendment to increase the cap on private development by 4 percent, said that he is concerned that the 2 percent increases in the caps do not give the labor market confidence enough to invest now in solar projects that could be built next summer.
"The reality is that this industry is very fragile, by increasing caps by only two percent there is a real argument ... that investment capital and angel capital will dry up so that the projects that have been approved and are ready to go will be stalled," Calter said. "The two percent may be enough to get us through mid-year based up the current build rate, but then this industry will come to a screeching halt."
Solar advocates, too, took issue with the House bill, saying that the modest lift in the cap is not nearly enough. Environment Massachusetts, in a statement, called the bill "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and said it moves the state in the wrong direction on solar.
"Today, House leaders had the opportunity to take a major step forward on solar power. Instead, they took a big step back," Environment Massachusetts State Director Ben Hellerstein said in the statement. "Under the guise of a minor lift to the solar caps, it would slam the brakes on solar by making major, unjustified cuts to the compensation for solar energy. It would reduce access to the benefits of solar, making it harder for renters, low-income communities, and families whose roofs aren't suitable for solar panels to power their homes with clean energy."
The House did compromise with critics on one issue, adopting a Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli amendment that would allow net-metering projects connected to the grid before the state hits 1,600 megawatts to receive retail rate credits for 20 years, up from the original 15-year grandfathering clause. After 1,600 megawatts are installed, credits would fall to wholesale prices under the House bill. Solar advocates asked for 25 years of retail-rate credits.
Downing, the co-chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, ended an unrelated hearing around 5 p.m. and said he planned to go meet with Senate leadership and set to work drafting what he hopes could be the makings of a compromise bill.
Asked his thoughts on the House version as written by the House Ways and Means Committee, Downing paused before saying, "I think we got some work to do." He specifically said reducing net metering credits to wholesale rates might be "a bit much." Still, the Pittsfield Democrat said he would not rule out striking a deadline deal with the House that would avoid going into the winter recess without a finalized solar bill.
"I want to get a bill to the governor. I don't think we need to dilly-dally with a conference committee, right? We know the issues that are before us. I think we can get into conference, sit down and bang this thing out in one day, yeah, absolutely," he said.
Downing said he hadn't yet spoken with Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Pacheco about the House decision to disregard a piece of the Senate's bill requiring a state climate adaption management plan.
"We know that if we just sit on our hands we're looking at a couple of months here where we stall development even further. Maybe I am too much of an optimist but I'm hopeful we can get something done tomorrow," he repeated.
The Environmental League of Massachusetts, too, registered its unhappiness with the House's bill, saying the slight cap lift is "insufficient" and that the bill "fails to sustain the growth of solar throughout the Commonwealth and misses an important opportunity to diversify our energy portfolio."
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments