A powerful, pro-solar energy lobby group, the Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA), is using its national resources to urge Mainers to oppose a bipartisan bill that would mitigate some of the economic hardships caused by pro-solar net energy billing (NEB) policies.
[RELATED: Mainers Overflow Hearing to Speak Out on Both Sides of Proposed Net Energy Billing Repeal…]
“CCSA strongly opposes providing the PUC broad retroactive rate setting authority for existing projects. Projects that are bound to existing contracts, are already constructed, have paid for the capital expenditures to build the project, and now have debt obligations and other firm financial commitments have no flexibility in how they respond to the rates,” said Kate Daniel, Northeast Regional Director for CCSA testifying against LD 1777.
The bill was a bipartisan effort from sponsor Rep. Sophia Warren (D-Scarborough) and its sole co-sponsor, Rep. Steven Foster (R-Dexter), to fix some of the harms caused to Maine energy ratepayers by net energy billing, while continuing to allow solar developers to make a profit.
The controversial NEB program, part of Maine’s “green energy initiative,” is designed to increase the use of “renewable” solar energy by allowing power companies, such as Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant, to subsidize solar energy developments by increasing energy rates for the vast majority of Mainers who don’t want or can’t afford solar panels.
As drafted originally, the bill instructs the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to ensure that the NEB program limits harm to ratepayers by capping the tariff rate–the additional rate charged by power companies–at 1.5 times the regional average of tariff rates in other states.
It ensures that solar developers will still have a “reasonable opportunity to earn a fair profit,” though it does not define what constitutes a reasonable opportunity or fair profit.
According to Rep. Foster, the bill would save ratepayers 20-25 percent of the annual $240 million spent to subsidize solar under the program. However, he told The Maine Wire that he would prefer much more substantial cuts to the program.
“Regarding LD 1777, the savings of 20 to 25 percent of the projected $240 million annual NEB costs by the end of this year doesn’t go far enough in my opinion. Considering the continued cost to ratepayers, I’m concerned about how many of them, both residential and commercial, can afford their bills without larger NEB reductions. Not only will this lead to more residents depending on financial assistance to pay their bills, but it will likely lead to more small business closures,” Foster told The Maine Wire.
“It appears LD 1777 will be the last bill standing this session that offers any relief for Maine ratepayers through its minor adjustment to existing NEB statute. Although I’m not sure I can support it due to its lack of substantial savings, LD 1777 at least could serve as a first step in real NEB reform, which has been needed since 2019,” he added.
The Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology considered the bill and ultimately sent it to the broader legislature with a divided report following a May 29 work session.
The committee’s Democratic majority supported one amendment, while the Republicans joined together in supporting another. Both amendments change the title of the bill and completely replace its text.
The Republican amendment titles the bill “An Act to Establish Duration and Compensation Limits in the Net Energy Billing Program,” and the Democratic version would be called “An Act to Clarify Tariff Rates for Nonresidential Customers Participating in Net Energy Billing with a Distributed Generation Resource.”
Both amendments would continue the original bill’s purpose of protecting ratepayers while preserving solar investments. The Republican version leans more toward ratepayer protections, while the Democratic amendment appears to maintain more protections for NEB beneficiaries.
The NEB program, though devastating for some Mainers and businesses, is extremely lucrative for those who can afford solar panels and massive solar development companies that enjoy monetary credits for producing solar energy at the expense of the majority of ratepayers.
This is why pro-solar lobbyist groups, like the CCSA, are now weighing in to stop any efforts at reform, even the relatively mild LD 1777 ends up being a middle ground on NEB, protecting ratepayers without deeply impacting solar developer investments.
CCSA is based in Washington, D.C., and lobbies nationwide for policies that will benefit solar developers. It is composed of over 100 non-profits and businesses involved in solar energy.
That list includes developers with projects in Maine who stand to lose money if NEB is curtailed or repealed.
Nautilus Solar, a Canadian-owned company, has significant stakes in the Maine solar industry, with projects in Cumberland, Knox, Oxford, York, and Aroostook. They are listed as a leadership member in CCSA.
Nexamp, also a leadership member, has numerous solar developments in Maine benefiting from NEB policy.
According to Open Secrets, an organization that tracks lobbyists and other political spending, CCSA has spent $60,000 on lobbying this year so far, though the real number is likely much higher. Open Secrets’ number appears to only include federal lobbying and only lists two hired lobbyists, which does not include lobbying funds spent or lobbyists hired at the state level.
Maine Ethics Commission disclosures reveal that CCSA has hired two lobbyists from the Augusta-based Maine Street Solutions lobbying firm for $1,485 to represent their interests.
That relatively small number may not represent the whole of CCSA’s influence on Maine laws, however. Other employees of CCSA have also testified against bills to repeal NEB earlier this year, including CCSA Northeast Regional Director Kate Daniel, and are not listed as lobbyists by the Maine Ethics Commission.
In February, Daniel testified in strong opposition to three bills that would have eliminated or significantly curtailed NEB.
“These bills are a dangerous weapon aimed at the wrong target. Net Energy Billing is working to deliver direct bill savings to these customers, and to deliver broad benefits to all Maine ratepayers,” she said.
The organization also appears to have ties to members of the Maine legislature with some power over NEB policy, including Sen. Mark Lawrence (D-York), who chairs the Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology.
In 2023, the CCSA declared Sen. Lawrence a “Community Solar Champion” for his sponsorship of a bill that furthered net energy billing and the state’s green energy agenda.
“Under his leadership, the Maine Senate rejected a dangerous counterproposal that would have undone the state’s progress towards building a clean energy future, and, instead, helped the Maine Senate adopt legislation to move solar programs forward,” said the CCSA.
It appears that, even after awarding Lawrence for his work on solar policy, the CCSA is not satisfied with the Democrat majority amendment to LD 1777, supported by Lawrence.
The lobbying organization is paying to send out text messages to Mainers, urging them to contact their lawmakers and tell them not to allow LD 1777 to pass.
“Our state lawmakers are trying to pass LD 1777, which will crush community solar in Maine. If passed, say goodbye to energy choices, to energy savings, and to a cleaner energy future. Contact your lawmaker now, and tell them to protect community solar,” said the CCSA text message.
Notably, the message refers to “our” rather than “your” lawmakers, making it appear that the D.C.-based national organization is a local, Maine-based operation. It also urges Mainers to call for the bill to fail entirely, not for the majority, Democrat-amended version to pass.
According to Foster, the CCSA is not the only organization expending resources to oppose LD 1777.
The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM), a nonprofit that advocates for a variety of environmental policies, is also fighting against cuts to NEB.
“I understand the NRCM and others have joined the CCSA today in lobbying Legislators very strongly in opposition to LD 1777. As with the many bills to lower the cost of NEB for Maine ratepayers this session, they continue to suggest the solar developers and their investors would suffer financial losses they may not survive,” Foster told The Maine Wire.
It remains to be seen whether lobbying activities will be enough to stop the passage of a form of the bipartisan LD 1777. If they do, it will become clearer to Maine voters which legislators are in big solar’s pocket.
