SB98 amends New Mexico law governing solar collectors by expanding the prohibition on private deed restrictions and similar covenants that interfere with solar installations. Under the bill, a covenant, condition, or restriction in a deed, contract, security agreement, or other instrument affecting real property would be void and unenforceable if it effectively prohibits a solar collector or if it increases the consumer’s cost of purchasing and installing one by more than 10 percent or $1,500, after credits and incentives, or reduces operating efficiency by more than 10 percent.
The bill also preserves existing authority for counties and municipalities to regulate solar collectors in historic districts. In addition, it keeps the current rule that the prevailing party in an enforcement action is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Overall, the measure is aimed at making rooftop and other property-based solar installations more accessible by limiting private restrictions that can function as de facto bans or significant cost barriers.
Impact
SB98 would amend Section 3-18-32 NMSA 1978, New Mexico’s limitation on county and municipal restrictions on solar collectors, by adding a more specific standard for when private covenants and related property instruments are unenforceable. It would affect homeowners, property owners, HOAs, developers, lenders, and other parties using deed restrictions or similar instruments, while leaving local historic-district regulation intact. The practical effect is to strengthen solar access rights and reduce the ability of private agreements to block or materially burden solar installations.
Sentiment
The bill’s title and structure suggest a generally pro-solar, consumer-protection approach, and the available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes indicating opposition or support. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to facilitate solar adoption and protect property owners from restrictive covenants that undermine solar rights. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s clear pro-renewable-energy intent.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s numeric threshold for invalidating covenants: restrictions that raise costs by more than 10 percent or $1,500, or reduce efficiency by more than 10 percent, would be unenforceable. Supporters would likely view this as a practical safeguard against hidden barriers to solar adoption, while opponents may argue it limits private property agreements, HOA authority, or lender/association design standards. Another possible issue is how the cost and efficiency thresholds would be measured and enforced in practice, especially after credits and incentives are applied.