Committee advances bill to speed community solar interconnections amid disputes over costs and labor

Representatives on the House Energy & Environment Committee voted 9–4 on March 27 to advance House Bill 12-25, a measure sponsors said would accelerate community solar development and preserve bill-credit value for income-qualified subscribers as federal tax credits phase down in 2029.

Representative Smith, a sponsor, told the committee the bill "is designed to accelerate community solar development before federal tax credits expire in 2029," and said it would not expand the 300 megawatts of inclusive community solar the legislature authorized in 2024. Co-sponsor Representative Wilford said the changes would reduce interconnection delays and allow developers to use surety bonds rather than large upfront cash deposits for interconnection upgrades.

Proponents — including developers and conservation groups — argued long utility queues and sequential interconnection studies are creating multi-year delays that threaten projects’ ability to qualify for federal investment tax credits. Mike Foote of Sunshare told the committee his company has "18 projects in Xcel territory currently waiting for interconnection studies to be completed," representing roughly 60 megawatts of capacity and thousands of potential low-income subscribers. Alex Shobe of Cloudbreak Energy Partners said volatile bill credits make projects hard to finance and called the bill a "0 cost solution" to provide predictability for income-qualified households.

Opponents focused on workforce, safety and cost concerns. Jeremy Ross of IBEW Local 111 said the union’s linemen are "largely tapped out" and warned the bill could create a situation in which some projects are allowed to accelerate processes in ways that disadvantage other queued projects. Phil Hayes of the National Electrical Contractors Association told the committee that Xcel Energy’s internal teams know distribution-system "quirks" and cautioned that adding third-party access risks safety and could push higher-priority infrastructure projects further down the queue.

Neil Cowan, a regulatory manager for Xcel Energy, told the committee he opposed the bill in its current form and that, based on the company’s analysis, changes to bill-credit rules would "increase those costs to our customers" — an estimate he gave as roughly $900 million to $1.4 billion over 20–25 years under various assumptions — and called the proposal "not sound energy policy." Sponsors and proponents disputed that characterization and said they could accept narrowing language, indexing fixes and labor protections to address legitimate concerns.

Committee members pursued extensive questioning on three main points: (1) whether opening a third-party interconnection path merely shifts scarce labor or actually expands available capacity, (2) whether fixed bill credits with an index would raise costs for nonparticipating ratepayers, and (3) whether third-party access creates security or coordination problems for grid operations. Proponents said the bill would create a parallel path for studies and upgrades (allowing developers to contract qualified third parties) and could be coupled with supplier and worker protections. Opponents said a second path could let some projects "jump the line," and urged use of PUC-managed prioritization or better use of existing emergency funding.

The sponsors offered and the committee adopted multiple amendments to address concerns. Sponsor amendments (L4–L8) narrowed indexing language to protect low-income subscribers, clarified that solar-plus-storage fits the definition of dispatchable distributed resources, limited the bill’s scope to investor-owned utilities, removed duplicative appeal language, and exempted Black Hills Energy where appropriate. Representative Goldstein’s amendment (L10) was adopted to require that third-party-contracted interconnection work meet Colorado’s public-works craft labor and apprenticeship/wage standards. A committee amendment (L11) revised safety/petition language. Sponsors said they would continue to work with labor and utilities on any remaining issues.

After the amendment phase the committee voted to refer the bill as amended to the Committee on Finance. Miss Falco called the roll; the motion carried 9–4. The committee’s action advances the measure but does not enact it; the Finance Committee will next consider fiscal implications and any further amendment.

The committee adjourned after the vote; sponsors said they will continue negotiations with labor and utilities as the bill proceeds to finance.