After the shock of earlier executive orders had somewhat subsided, we were lulled by the notion that “only Congress can change the tax code,” and then, it happened. Congress began its work on a reconciliation bill, parts of which would effectively pull the rug from under the solar industry.

But we’re not letting it happen without a fight.

RENEW Wisconsin, like many other organizations, is sharing action alerts and urging members of the industry and the public to contact their members of Congress. The effort is meant to bring the harsh reality into view, so policymakers can understand that gutting the programs and repealing these tax credits immediately will have devastating effects. These effects will be felt by real people, businesses, and local energy production.

Many of our partner organizations, like the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), have organized webinars and call-ins to keep industry participants informed and involved. In-district meetings and a fly-in to D.C. have been organized to meet with elected representatives and advise them on a different course of action.

When the distressing contents of the House bill were voted on and the bill moved to the Senate, a determined group of RENEW Wisconsin members scheduled a meeting with Senator Ron Johnson’s chief of staff.  I, along with Michael Cornell from Ach Solar, Ron Chester from Full Spectrum, Kurt Reinhold from Legacy Solar Co-op, and Michael Reuter from Midwest Solar Power, met with Tom Petri in the Madison district office. The main message conveyed was “don’t pull the rug” out from under our businesses, replicating the same term Senator Johnson used during a recent media interview. During that interview, Johnson indicated he did not want to hurt business.

But there was more — the specific examples relayed to Johnson’s team highlighted how the tax credit helps with the upfront cost of projects and allows nonprofits, farmers, and homeowners to take advantage of solar power and reduce their energy bills. We shared how manufacturing has just started to ramp up and has begun producing materials in the U.S. to help boost local energy production. We also explained that deploying solar is faster, cheaper, and if partnered with battery storage, incredibly reliable.

The tax incentives supporting the industry were not expected to last forever, but the abrupt end to them will impact projects, eliminate prior investment, cut jobs, and delay future development. This affects homeowners, developers, installers, manufacturers, and much more.

While we await final action by the Senate, followed by some form of compromise with the House, we’re tracking developments and urging people to advocate for the industry.

There is a way to phase out the credits, with an intentional transition, without disrupting the established progress. For that, Congress needs to hear from the industry and make the needed changes.

Contact your representatives today!

The headline “ROFR is dead…long live ROFR” is representative not only of the changing stances on legislation but also of having two sides to every issue.

ROFR or the Right of First Refusal is an effort to give in-state utilities the first right to build transmission lines, presumably to lower costs and keep competition out. However, having one source to build transmission seems to lack the much-needed support.  

In the last week or so, another bill emerged with more provisions than the original. ROFR became WERA — the Wisconsin Energy Reform Act. The new additions may have convinced a few to change their stance, but WERA opened the floodgates of additional opposition and muddied the bill so much more.

The bill aims to incentivize developers to choose nonproductive, less desirable land to build renewable energy projects. This is done by limiting the number of acres available in both towns and counties. In addition, the new bill requires the developer to purchase up to four times more acres than the original project required to ensure prime agricultural land is reserved for agricultural production. 

This seems like getting the stick for punishment rather than a carrot of encouragement. If the goal is to prevent development on prime farmland, why does this only apply to wind and solar? What about the strides made to incorporate growing vegetables and grazing sheep under solar panels for agrivoltaics production? What if the landowner wants to use their land for development rather than farming? 

The complexity of such reforms can be addressed. In a bill that brings together those who develop the land and those who farm it, as well as those who oversee the process. Rather than as an add-on to an already bogged-down legislation on life support.