Representative Colin Jack, sponsor of HB 57, told the Public Utilities and Energy Committee the first substitute focuses on clarifying consumer protections for residential solar customers and addressing recurring complaints about sales tactics, unmet production promises and long delays before grid connection. ‘‘We put some restrictions that as they make promises to how much the energy these will produce, that that it comes within a a reasonable percentage of that,’’ Jack said.

Director Katie Haas of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection described a long-running pattern of complaints involving door-to-door sales, inaccurate production estimates, companies going dark before completing work, and extended waits for utility interconnection. ‘‘There are some really good solar companies in the state of Utah. I do not want to act like the entire industry is fraught with peril. However, there are some really bad actors in this space as well,’’ Haas told the committee.

Key provisions in the first substitute described at the hearing include a requirement that sales representatives be W-2 employees of the installing company (rather than independent 1099 contractors), a supplier registry and bonding requirement, clarified production-disclosure language to limit deceptive performance claims, and a staged payment schedule that ties a portion of contractor payment to final interconnection and system operation. Jack said the staged schedule mirrors standard construction progress payments and is intended to prevent customers from paying for systems that are never energized.

Industry witnesses and utilities generally supported the bill’s consumer-protection goals but warned of unintended business consequences from the payment schedule tied to interconnection. Jordan Garn of the Solar Energy Industry Association and Ryan Stuckey, CEO of Smartwave Solar, said grid-interconnection timelines — which can be affected by utility processing, municipal inspections and meter work — can extend from weeks to months and that forcing installers to carry large amounts of unpaid capital could impose severe cash-flow burdens. Stuckey estimated the current draft could require up to $2 million in working capital to maintain current volumes; other installers reported similar concerns.

Public power and cooperatives — including a statement from Nathaniel Johnson, executive director of the Utah Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Brian Dial, energy director for the City of St. George — said utilities generally support clearer customer information and noted interconnection delays are a shared problem that often involves city permitting and utility procedures.

Several local businesses in the solar industry said they want to work with the sponsor to refine payment and registration language so the bill protects consumers without causing viable local companies to fail. Industry representatives also asked the committee to align registration and contractor requirements with existing contractor-registration processes and to allow reasonable flexibility for installers that serve new-construction projects.

Committee action: the committee adopted the first substitute and then voted unanimously to recommend HB 57 (first substitute) favorably out of committee. Sponsor Jack said he expects to offer technical fixes on the floor to address specific concerns raised by lenders and installers.

What to watch next: sponsors said they will work with utilities, installers and financial institutions on payment-timing language and bank underwriting concerns before floor action. Director Haas said the Division of Consumer Protection receives frequent complaints about solar and that the bill aims to distinguish credible local businesses from bad actors.

Representative Snyder moved adoption of the first substitute and moved the recommendation out of committee; both motions carried unanimously.