The Connecticut Green Bank has been stripped from Gov. Ned Lamont’s solar bill which requires all school districts seeking state grants for school construction to get a solar feasibility study following a public hearing in which the Green Bank was criticized for competing against the private solar industry.
Under the original language, An Act Supporting Solar Energy in Schools directed municipalities to the Green Bank by name to determine if a school could support solar installations to help power the school and cut costs. However, members of the private solar industry believed this was giving an unfair advantage to the Green Bank and have for several years claimed the Green Bank was actively competing with them for projects.
During that same public hearing, it was revealed that while the Green Bank solicited competitive bids for construction of school and municipal solar projects, the financing of those projects – in which the financier pays the upfront costs and recoups that money and more through a per kilowatt charge on the electricity – was being directed to Inclusive Prosperity Capital, a nonprofit the Green Bank created with its own employees and which operates out of the same office.
When IPC was forced to submit financing bids on state projects, they came in higher than the lowest bidder and were ultimately not selected to finance those projects. Without competitive bidding for project financing, municipalities could potentially be saving more money on their electricity charges.
The Green Bank, in name at least, was removed from the bill and replaced with language indicating that municipalities applying for school construction grants would only have to get a solar feasibility assessment but not requiring it to be done by the Green Bank.
Representatives of Connecticut’s private solar industry were concerned that the Green Bank, which has the backing of the state government and is funded through charges on residents’ electric bills, has an advantage in the marketplace, leading municipal leaders to choose a government entity over a private company. Their concern was that naming the Green Bank as the sole entity to conduct solar assessments would only push more business their way.
However, additional language included at the bottom of the bill offers a pathway for the Green Bank, a quasi-public state agency, to do the assessments by establishing that state agencies and quasi-public agencies are classified under the language of an “entity,” for purposes of the bill. Essentially establishing that municipalities, should they choose, could still seek solar feasibility assessments through the Green Bank.
The updated bill passed out the Energy and Technology Committee on March 21, with a 12-6 party-line vote and committee chairman Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, saying the bills are still works in progress.
Rep. Holly Cheeseman, R-East Lyme, voted against the bill and highlighted comments made by representatives of the private solar industry, saying she was concerned about the role of the Green Bank.
“We did have comments from our local contractors about being shut out of projects, and I would hate to see them precluded from working on this kind of thing,” Cheeseman said.
Committee Vice-Chair Rep. Jaime Foster, D-Ellington, was critical of Green Bank’s practices when CEO Byran Garcia and Chief Financial Officer Mackey Dykes testified during public hearing and voted in favor of the bill with the new language.
During the same meeting, the committee also passed a bill that would rein in the Green Bank’s ability to advertise – something Garcia opposed during the public testimony.
Under the terms of the legislation, the Green Bank would not be allowed to “offer, advertise, market or provide any financing or development services concerning any commercial project” if the private sector provides those services unless the project is part of a commercial sustainable energy program.
Garcia argued the bill would “effectively eliminate” their ability to assist in financing solar construction in the residential, commercial, and small business market. Furthermore, Garcia, in written testimony, indicated the Green Bank “has stepped away from numerous markets when the private sector is functioning efficiently and offering a cost-effective clean energy option to ratepayers.”
An Act Concerning Solar Projects Throughout the State – put together by committee chairman Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport – is a rather sweeping change to Connecticut’s solar policies, expanding the state’s solar goals to achieving 500 megawatts of capacity per year, and establishing uniform capacity taxes for solar projects, among other initiatives that the Council of Small Towns (COST) Executive Director Betsy Gara said were too low.
During comments before the vote – which was split down party lines – Republican lawmakers expressed concern that the legislation was too large and sweeping but said they would continue working with their Democrat counterparts to get language in place upon which they could all agree.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Yes, we pay for all the Green Bank and other NetZero Programs when the PURA finally gets around to approving the costs that have been piling up in PURA since 2019. The 19% rate increase includes a million dollars for the Green Bank storage program (3/4 administration and 1/4 subsidy to customers). This program is just getting started and the 1000 MW of storage in the new bills will cost $460 million for the subsidy alone. The ISO just procured large scale storage for 1/6 the price of residential storage.
The state spends our money not so wisely, and then EverSource gets a black eye for the rate increase. It’s Docket #24-01-03 if you’re interested. See the letter by an outside consultant on the damage done to EverSource’s finances by the 5 year delay in bill payment.
More NetZero price increases to come….85% of the rate increase was for Millstone 4.99c/kWh power being slightly over the ISO market price. Can you imagine the rate increase when the 15 c/kWh offshore wind is incorporated in the price of electricity?
The annual additional 500 MW of solar will cost-shift an additional $250 million to non-solar customers and cause a 5% rate increase every 2-3 years. California just stopped the cost shift by stopping net-metering and reducing the payment for solar generation from 31 cents to 8 cents. We should do the same. Now! We’re already at 5% BTM Solar, California was at 10% BTM solar when they started to reign it in.
The cost shift is needed because small scale solar and storage costs 2-6 times utility scale solar and storage. Residential BTM solar costs $53 cents/kWh. More than 10 times the 4.99 cent Millstone contract that was responsible for the 19% increase.
Our schools should focus on education, not cost-shifting costly rooftop solar to its citizens.