Revises provisions relating to commerce. (BDR 55-336)
SB379 revises Nevada law governing the sale, lease, financing, and power-purchase contracting of distributed generation systems, which in practice primarily covers residential solar transactions. The bill adds a new set of requirements for distributed generation system financiers, solar installation companies, and lead generators, including mandatory disclosures, limits on fees and deposits, recording and identity-verification requirements, restrictions on deceptive marketing, and rules governing when money may be paid to installers. It also requires financiers to verify that installers are properly licensed and operating within their license limits, and it bars premature disconnection of systems for nonpayment until multiple missed payments have occurred.
The bill expands consumer protections by extending rescission rights from 3 business days to 10 business days for customers age 60 or older, and by creating an additional rescission right when a post-signing site survey requires a price increase or equipment change. It also requires agreements and cover pages to disclose transferability issues, payoff procedures, death-related consequences, warranty terms, production estimates, and the amount paid for leads or referrals. Violations of the new requirements are treated as deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud, and certain agreements become voidable if the required disclosures or licensing safeguards are not met.
SB379 amends multiple sections of Chapter 598 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and makes a conforming change to Chapter 675 so installment lenders may not engage in deceptive trade practices. The bill creates new statutory definitions for distributed generation system financiers and loans, and it imposes new contract-content, disclosure, and conduct rules on solar leases, solar purchases, distributed generation loans, and power purchase agreements. It also authorizes the State Contractors’ Board to adopt background-check regulations for solar installation company employees and extends record-retention requirements from 4 to 5 years. The practical effect is to increase regulatory oversight of solar sales and financing, strengthen consumer remedies, and give affected customers and host customers additional cancellation and enforcement rights.
The voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and had broad legislative support, passing the Senate 19-2 and the Assembly 39-3. The structure of the bill and its emphasis on disclosures, licensing verification, and anti-deception rules indicate a consumer-protection approach rather than a deregulatory one. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate detailed floor or committee sentiment beyond the strong bipartisan vote margins.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s added compliance burdens on solar companies and financiers versus the consumer protections it creates. Potentially controversial provisions include the longer rescission period for older consumers, the requirement that financiers verify contractor licensing and withhold payments until utility permission or final inspection, the limits on lead-generator compensation and advertising methods, and the rule making agreements voidable for disclosure failures. Industry participants may view these provisions as increasing transaction costs and liability exposure, while consumer advocates would likely support them as safeguards against misleading solar sales practices and premature payment collection.