State lawmakers hustled this year to introduce state-level solar bills. Some of these bills aimed to support solar, while others were designed as a hindrance.
This article serves as an update for some of the bills that failed to progress. Read about other bills, including those that were passed, vetoed or are still underway here.
New York’s bill to increase maximum tax credit for residential solar and storage installations
Since 2006, New York has offered a solar tax credit capped at $5,000 per household for solar installations. The credit is sized at 25% of the system cost, or $5,000, whichever is less.
Nearly two decades later, “there’s a number of fixes that need to occur with this tax credit,” T.R. Ludwig told pv magazine USA. Ludwig has been on NYSEIA’s board for more than seven years, and CEO and co-founder of both Brooklyn SolarWorks and Brooklyn Solar Canopy.
SB S3596B would have doubled the cap to $10,000, allowing customers to offset state income taxes with a credit and retain the 25% installed system cost. The bill also strived to remove a 50 kW limit on how much co-ops and condos can use the tax credit towards, a cap other residential buildings are not subject to.
NYSEIA also proposed to apply the tax credit to energy storage. If successful, New York would become the first state to do so. New York was historically one of the few states to offer tax credits on top of the federal credits for home solar installations.
North Carolina’s bill to limit solar growth, cut tax incentives
A bill in the North Carolina House aimed to cut tax incentives in half for utility-scale solar projects and make it harder for them to be installed on agricultural land.
Introduced in the North Carolina House by Rep. Dixon (R), HB 729, or “The Farmland Protection Act,” would have reduced the tax abatement for certain solar projects from 80% to 40% of the appraised value.
Additionally, HB 729 forbid utility-scale solar projects from being constructed if they are not certified as qualifying small power production facilities under the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, unless the project is sited on a brownfield property, non-agricultural land, or timberland that has been clear-cut harvested and is not currently in production. Brownfields are idle commercial or industrial properties where redevelopment is hampered by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Oklahoma’s bill to build out agrivoltaics
A bill that sought for compatibility between Oklahoma’s agricultural industry and solar development died in the Senate after it passed the state’s House of Representatives.
The Oklahoma Agrivoltaics Act, or HB 2157, aimed to enhance the state’s electrical generation capacity while supporting agricultural productivity through the development of renewable energy projects.
Automated permitting bills in Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois and New York
Solar permitting bills failed to pass in Minnesota, Hawaii, New York and Illinois. Colorado technically passed a bill that, as introduced, would have required automated permitting, but the state’s House of Representatives gutted the bulk of the bill.
Bills to increase transparency with PJM
Virginia’s bill would have required transparency for how utilities cast their votes, along with a brief description of how each vote cast by the utility or its affiliate is in the public interest.
Illinois introduced a bill that would have required its utilities Ameren and ComEd to submit a report to state regulators revealing the votes they cast during grid operator meetings. A bill for increased transparency would have been welcome in a state that is currently wrapping up a corruption scandal between ComEd and its lawmakers, including former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who filed an appeal earlier this week for his conviction on 10 federal corruption charges for the scandal, which involved passing legislation at the expense of the state’s ratepayers.
Similar to Illinois, Delaware introduced a bill that would have required the disclosure of votes cast at meetings, or matters before, PJM.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.