AND SOLAR WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON

HB 5002: An Act Concerning the Development of a Green New Deal and HB 5237: An Act Requiring a Study of Energy Storage Projects & Distributed Generation

February 21, 2019

Dear Energy Technology Committee Leaders and Members:

Sunrun and Vivint Solar, two of the largest residential solar companies in the United States, appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on this legislation. Our companies employ thousands of solar workers across more than 20 states, including , and often partner with state legislatures on policies to grow solar energy and solar jobs.

Last year the legislature enacted one of the most regressive solar policies in the nation. Senate Bill 9 / Public Act 18-50 eliminated “net metering,” which is offered in 38 states1 and provides bill credits to solar owners for their excess clean energy sent to the grid. Senate Bill 9 replaces net metering with two policies that have reduced solar installations and have killed solar jobs in other states.2 The 2,200 jobs your constituents hold in Connecticut’s solar industry are now in jeopardy. We have tried to communicate this risk to the legislature, DEEP and PURA over the last year (see attached), but we feel our concerns have not been taken seriously. Without legislative action this session, significant job loss will likely occur when net metering expires in the third quarter of this year.

Regarding HB 5002, Sunrun and Vivint Solar support policies that promote clean energy, such as a Green New Deal, but saving Connecticut’s 2,200 solar jobs should take precedence over any other measure. We feel it does not make sense for Connecticut to advance a Green New Deal when its solar industry is facing an existential crisis. Simply put, a Green New Deal will not be possible without a viable solar industry. We respectfully urge the Committee to consider language supported by more than 40 solar companies, associations and environmental groups that would restore net metering, save solar jobs and advance Connecticut’s clean energy goals.

Regarding HB 5237, Sunrun and Vivint Solar support a study of energy storage and distributed generation in Connecticut. Over the past year we have encouraged Connecticut policymakers to complete a value of solar study to identify the benefits and any costs of distributed solar generation, as many other states have done. Such a study would identify whether any alleged “cost shift” is occurring from solar customers to non-solar customers, but DEEP has indicated it opposes taking this evidence-based approach. We believe such a study is necessary and will confirm that no “cost shift” exists in Connecticut, and that solar provides a net benefit to all ratepayers, as the Brookings Institution and others have concluded.3

1 http://www.dsireusa.org/resources/detailed-summary-maps/ 2 http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Appendix-A.pdf 3 https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/ We greatly appreciate the Committee’s consideration of these issues and welcome the opportunity to meet at your convenience.

Respectfully Submitted,

Evan Dube Senior Director, Public Policy Sunrun, Inc.

Kyle Wallace Manager, Markets & Regulatory Affairs Vivint Solar, Inc.

February 15, 2019

The Energy and Technology Committee Legislative Office Building, Room 3900 Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Energy and Technology Committee Leaders,

The undersigned organizations and businesses strongly support the enclosed legislative proposal to address the near-term crisis facing Connecticut’s solar industry, which employs more than 2,100 people. These jobs are in jeopardy without legislative action this session.

Last year’s Senate Bill 9 (now PA 18-50) locked in the termination of “net metering,” which will occur in October, if not sooner. Net metering is a critical clean energy policy offered in 38 states that provides electric bill credits to solar owners who send clean power to the grid.1 With less than seven months before net metering expires, no successor program is in place for either the residential or commercial solar industries. We are now facing a cliff in the sustained, orderly development of solar energy in Connecticut.

There is consensus among PURA stakeholders that the process to replace net metering has been rushed, and that the new programs will not be ready in time. Merely providing PURA more time is not sufficient because the successor programs required by PA 18-50 are overly complicated, expensive to implement and have killed solar jobs in other states, including Maine, , and .2

Instead of rushing to implement harmful policies, we feel the state legislature should pause implementation of the new programs and continue Connecticut’s status quo solar policies (net metering, RSIP, ZREC, etc.). During this time, Connecticut should do what dozens of other states have done: collect data from a value of solar study and use it to determine whether new programs are warranted.

The enclosed legislative proposal accomplishes these critical goals. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this language and respectfully encourage the committee to advance it to a public hearing.

Sincerely,

1 http://www.dsireusa.org/resources/detailed-summary-maps/ 2 https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-by-state-2018/ 1. Acadia Center Hartford, CT 2. Allco Renewable Energy , NY 3. Coalition for Community Solar Access Boston, MA 4. Clean Water Action East Berlin, CT 5. CMC Energy Services Yalesville, CT 6. Connecticut Citizen Action Group Hartford, CT 7. Connecticut Conference of Municipalities New Haven, CT 8. Connecticut Fund for the Environment New Haven, CT 9. CT League of Conservation Voters Hartford, CT 10. CT Roundtable on Climate and Jobs Hartford, CT 11. C-TEC Solar Bloomfield, CT 12. Earthlight Technologies Ellington, CT 13. EcoSmart Home Services East Berlin, CT 14. Environment Connecticut Hartford, CT 15. EnterSolar New York, NY 16. Fight the Hike New Haven, CT 17. Greenskies Renewable Energy Middletown, CT 18. JD Solar Solutions Glastonbury, CT 19. Litchfield Hills Solar Litchfield, CT 20. Lodestar Energy Avon, CT 21. MSL Group, Inc. Milford, CT 22. New Haven Energy Task Force New Haven, CT 23. NHS New Haven New Haven, CT 24. Northeast Clean Energy Council Boston, MA 25. Northeast Smart Energy Ridgefield, CT 26. Operation Fuel Hartford, CT 27. People’s Action for Clean Energy West Simsbury, CT 28. PosiGen Bridgeport, CT 29. PurePoint Energy Norwalk, CT 30. Renewable Energy & Efficiency Business Association West Hartford, CT 31. SHR Energy Weston, CT 32. Sierra Club Hartford, CT 33. 64Solar Port Chester, NY 34. Solar Connecticut Haddam, CT 35. Solar Energy Industries Association Washington, DC 36. Sol Systems Washington, DC 37. Star Power Southport, CT 38. Sunlight Solar Energy New Haven, CT 39. SunPower Newington, CT 40. Sunrun Hartford, CT 41. The Nature Conservancy New Haven, CT 42. Trinity Solar Stratford, CT 43. Verogy Hartford, CT 44. Vivint Solar North Haven, CT January 11, 2019

Mr. Jeffrey Gaudiosi, Esq. Executive Secretary Public Utilities Regulatory Authority 10 Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051

RE: Docket No. 18-08-33, PURA Implementation of Section 7 of Public Act 18-50

Dear Mr. Gaudiosi,

We hereby file this response to the January 3, 2019 correspondence of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC). We are extremely concerned that their request would result in a rushed proceeding and could create unintended consequences that state policymakers and legislators will come to regret. In implementing Public Act 18- 50 (formerly Senate Bill 9), the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) will determine the future of Connecticut’s solar industry and the fate of its more than 2,000 workers, and it should give these important issues the full process and consideration they deserve.

The undersigned parties believe that the proposal from DEEP and OCC would have extremely negative practical impacts on the solar industry, including massive job loss. We ask that state agencies follow Connecticut state law Section 16-245ff, which requires that state policies “foster the sustained, orderly development of a state-based solar industry.” Representatives of the Connecticut Green Bank, solar industry and independent policy organizations have repeatedly weighed in on these issues, starting with comments on the 2017-2018 Comprehensive Energy Strategy, testimony at the legislature, and participation in the PURA process over the last seven months.1 However, DEEP has continued to press forward with ideas that we believe are misguided and against constructive policy trends in other states. In fact, the states that have proposed or implemented the policies DEEP is advancing have either experienced significant job loss or have reversed course and are moving to reinstate net metering.2

Instead of rushing to implement flawed policy, state agencies should consider the Lamont-Bysiewicz Administration’s desire to avoid a major solar market disruption, promote in-state job creation and provide a smooth transition to a net metering successor program. The process and timeline DEEP and OCC request – for PURA to establish final residential tariffs in the first quarter of 2019 – is

1 Please see the undersigned parties’ submissions to docket 18-08-33 for detailed explanations of our concerns. 2 The implementation of “instantaneous netting” in Utah caused significant job loss and reduced residential solar installations by nearly three-fourths. In Maine, former Governor Paul LePage’s “buy-all, sell-all” tariff was repeatedly rejected by the state legislature and partially overturned by the public utilities commission (Maine has reinstated net metering for large customers and is expected to reinstate it for all customers this legislative session). unprecedented. New York, and have taken three years or longer to study, develop and implement successor programs, and have followed a more data-driven, gradual approach, typically considering time-of-use pricing as a first step. No other state has implemented a net metering successor tariff in the rushed manner proposed by DEEP and OCC.3

Despite the stated need for urgency, PURA has several options to avoid a rushed proceeding. As the Green Bank has stated, it could postpone reaching the RSIP program’s 300 MW target, which would provide PURA more time to conduct a proper proceeding.4 PURA could also establish an Interim Residential Tariff (IRT) that maintains net metering until the electric distribution companies (EDCs) can implement the full range of netting period options the legislature intended for its consideration in Public Act 18-50. As was revealed in this proceeding, the law’s accelerated time frame likely stems from a misunderstanding during the bill’s drafting regarding when RSIP would sunset. PURA pursuing these more incremental options will help address this miscalculation and may be essential to avoid a catastrophic gap or “cliff” if the net metering program ends before the EDCs are capable of implementing a successor program.

All parties to the proceeding seem to agree that it should provide an orderly transition and maintain a viable solar industry in Connecticut. We do not believe any participants in this docket, including DEEP and the OCC, intend to harm the solar industry or cause significant job loss, but we are gravely concerned that the current path will produce these results.

We urge PURA to carefully consider all the information in this docket and work to avoid such an outcome.

Sincerely,

Acadia Center Connecticut Fund for the Environment Northeast Clean Energy Council Solar Connecticut SunPower Sunrun Vivint Solar

3 Other states that have considered, or are currently considering, net metering successor programs include California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Michigan, Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, and . No state has developed and implemented a successor program as quickly as is occurring in Connecticut. 4 See the Connecticut Green Bank’s December 17, 2018 submission to PURA docket 18-08-33, page 2: http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/8e6fc37a54110e3e852576190052b64d/87746d9d6202244b85258367004e6 151/$FILE/CTGB%20IRT%20Response%2012.17.18.pdf PROTECTING CONNECTICUT SOLAR JOBS 2018’s SB 9 (PA 18-50): Flaws & Fixes

Summary SB 9 will eliminate net metering, the main policy behind solar development in Connecticut and the United States. Net metering provides a bill credit to solar energy producers who send their extra power to the electric grid. In the second half of 2019, SB 9 will replace net metering with two flawed policies that have killed solar jobs in other states, including Maine and Utah. In addition, SB 9 does not give PURA enough time to develop the new solar program. The regulatory process has been rushed and will produce unintended consequences.

SB 9 Flaws • SB 9 will put 2,200 solar jobs at risk by unintentionally ending net metering early. Due to a drafting error in SB 9, net metering will end in mid-2019, when the Green Bank’s Residential Solar Investment Program (RSIP) reaches its 300 MW goal. This is several years before the legislature intended to end net metering (at the end of 2022) and has given PURA only several months (not several years) to complete a proceeding to develop a new solar program.

• SB 9’s solar program will harm growth and kill jobs. The SB 9 tariff program that will replace net metering is overly complicated, expensive, and could reduce customer savings by 50%. Solar installations in Utah decreased 70% when it implemented “instantaneous netting.” Maine tried “buy-all, sell-all” but found it was too expensive, and is now reinstating net metering. When ended net metering in 2015, it killed thousands of jobs and prompted the state legislature to reinstate net metering in 2017.

• The SB 9 regulatory process is flawed and rushed. SB 9 restricts the net metering replacement programs PURA can select, but Eversource and United Illuminating cannot implement these programs on time (Eversource will require up to two years). Additionally, a drafting error in SB 9 has given PURA only several months to complete the proceeding, while other states have taken 2-3 years.

• The amount of solar in CT does not warrant the end of net metering. Solar provides only 1-2% of Connecticut’s total electricity. To pass SB 9, solar opponents cited an unfounded “cost shift,” arguing solar customers shift grid costs to non-solar customers. This is not true. A U.S. Department of Energy study found that cost shifts are “imperceptible” in areas with less than 10% solar,1 and the Brookings Institution found net metering is a net benefit to ratepayers.2

SB 9 Fixes • Commercial Solar: Continue the LREC/ZREC program for two years. SB 9 replaces the LREC/ZREC program with a new procurement plan and puts arbitrary caps on commercial solar investment that will restrict development. Continuing the LREC/ZREC program and increasing the cap on shared solar projects will increase solar investment and its economic benefits and expand solar access to low-income customers.

• Residential Solar: Maintain current programs. Connecticut’s solar policies have been successful and should be continued, including net metering and the Green Bank’s Residential Solar Investment Program by adding 100 MW. These programs will maintain the success of Connecticut’s solar industry until an independent study is completed to inform whether policy changes are warranted.

1 http://www.raponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/rap-lbnl-barbose-ncsl-jun-09-2017.pdf 2 https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/ 2/12/19

PROTECTING CONNECTICUT SOLAR JOBS 2019 ACTION PLAN

Pause • Pause PURA’s implementation of Section 7 of 2018’s SB 9 (Public Act 18-50)

Maintain • Keep current system that compensates consumers for solar sent to the grid (Net Metering) • Continue the Green Bank’s Residential Solar Program (RSIP) for two years (100 MW) • Extend commercial Low/Zero Emission program (LREC/ZREC) for two years • Lift caps on virtual net metering and shared solar to expand access to low-income customers

Evaluate • Conduct an independent study on 1) the value of solar to determine the benefits and costs of net metering and 2) the best policies & programs other states have pursued to reform net metering • Use the study results and data to inform the next Comprehensive Energy Strategy (CES)

Act • Launch revised solar programs in 2021 that promote the sustained, orderly development of an in-state solar industry (to retain 2,000+ jobs)

2/12/19 WHY GIVING PURA MORE TIME WILL ONLY FORESTALL DISASTER PURA cannot change the job-killing policies locked into SB 9 / PA 18-50, “buy-all, sell-all” and “instantaneous netting”; they must be changed.

“Buy-all, sell-all” ● “Buy-all, sell-all” killed solar jobs in Maine.1 It was 3-4 times more expensive to implement than anticipated and provided 30% less of the claimed benefits.2 Maine is now working to get rid of buy-all sell-all3 and is reinstituting net metering. Connecticut must learn from Maine’s mistakes and avoid the pain its solar industry experienced. ● Buy-all, sell-all prohibits homeowner rights to self-generation and self-consumption; homeowners cannot use the power their solar systems produce; they are required to sell 100% of it to the utility, at a rate determined by PURA, and are required to buy 100% of their power from the utility, likely at a higher rate. ● Buy-all, sell-all will prohibit the emergence of energy storage in CT, a technology that provides homeowners back-up power and stands to save all ratepayers money.

“Instantaneous netting” ● “Instantaneous netting” killed solar jobs in Utah, Arizona and Hawaii.4 In Utah, it shrank the residential solar market by 70%, even with an export rate very close to the retail rate (see chart below). Instantaneous netting is extremely complicated, reduces customer value and increases the likelihood of consumer protection issues. ● Instantaneous netting reduces customer value and may compromise the financing models behind the vast majority of residential solar installations in Connecticut. This would shrink the solar market by 2/3 and essentially end solar access for low-income and middle class families who finance their systems (the majority of the CT market). ● Other public utility commissions have examined instantaneous netting and found that it would produce “customer rate shock and confusion” and “adverse consequences.”5 The Impact of Instantaneous Netting in Utah (GTM Solar Market Insight Report 2018)

1 www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-by-state-2018/ ​ 2 www.bangordailynews.com/2018/11/20/opinion/contributors/maines-solar-policy-is-more-costly-than-expected-lawmakers-can-lessen-this-cost 3 www.pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/12/12/maine-regulators-reverse-gross-metering-decision-for-mid-sized-large-customers/ 4 www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-by-state-2018/ ​ 5 Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire, DE 16-576, Order No. 26,029 (June 23, 2017)

1