Connecticut Solar policy fight is picking up where it left off


Connecticut solar


Workers installing solar panels at Bishop’s Orchards in Guilford.

The fight over net metering is back. So anyone thinking legislation passed in Connecticut last year would extinguish controversy. Controversy over net metering.

So no fewer than four pieces of legislation were introduced. Thereby half were from Republicans and half from Democrats. They are filling to at least slow down, if not repeal, the process. A process started through Public Act 18-50. That legislation designed to carry out an update. An update to the state’s comprehensive energy strategy. One that was most arguably and also the most consequential energy legislation. That’s at least since forming the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) in 2011.

However dealing with solar programs has had the solar industry. In addition others incensed that changes were even  proposed in 2017 as part of the energy strategy. Those changes, while modified from DEEP’s original proposals, very nearly derailed the entire bill. 

Although some believing the Connecticut solar provisions were objectionable. However good news that the full legislation is being rejected. That’s despite its many other worthy components.

So vowing to re-examine it, opponents organizing for months. All with informational sessions and outreach. All with the new leadership of the Energy and Technology Committee. Most noteworthy many of whom are first-time legislators. Advocates emboldened aggressive energy policies of which Gov. Ned Lamont laid out during his campaign. In addition in his inaugural address vowing laser focus on job creation. Also improving the state’s economy.

Therefore enacted changes in the solar program are being cast as a counter to all. More importantly, solar adoption to be slowing and jobs being lost in Connecticut. That’s what advocates say. And an unusual conglomeration of strange bedfellows. A team including solar advocates and utilities. All those agreeing the time frame is not real. It’s set in the legislation. However making all the changes aren’t to be met.

For the entire story on