Is it time for “Got Solar?”
After a brutal start to the second Trump administration, some solar energy insiders are pushing for a public relations blitz to boost the industry’s image and counter opposition from landowners or local officials who have stalled large projects.
There’s even talk of borrowing a tactic from the agriculture industry and tacking a small fee on new solar panels to support public education and workforce development campaigns. The checkoff model is best known for the “Got Milk?” ads — backed by a surcharge on dairy products — that featured celebrities such as Michael Jordan, Britney Spears and the Simpsons with milk mustaches.
“We need to do more to talk about the benefits of solar power, to get away from some of the opposition that has demonized solar power,” said Luigi Resta, CEO of the Utah-based solar company rPlus Energies. “Solar power is ours, we have a right to it.”
Resta’s company has released three self-funded ads with the tagline “Our Power,” including one from the perspective of a solar energy worker comparing his job to the work of his coal mining grandfather.
A checkoff fee could fund similar ads — if industry groups can get on board.
The idea has been kicking around for years, but it’s picked up steam in Democratic-led statehouses across the country in the year since President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans eliminated renewable energy tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The solar industry is badly outspent by fossil fuel interests in Washington, contributing to a roller coaster of policy and tax incentive changes.
But within the industry, there’s debate about whether an image makeover would make a difference — especially if it involves a small price increase at a time when energy affordability is front and center.
It’s getting the most serious look in California, one of the country’s largest renewable-energy markets. But there’s been discussion too in states such as Virginia, Colorado, New York and Maryland.
California lawmakers and energy companies have been in early conversations since last year on a possible measure to raise money for the industry.
The talks come as Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state officials have sought to accelerate the permitting of renewable energy projects to meet increasingly strict emissions targets, handle rising demand for electricity, and make up for the loss of federal incentives — all while reckoning with rising anger over high electric bills.
“I’m open to doing it,” said state Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat from Santa Monica, who’s working with the advocacy group Coalition to Power America to draft legislative language.
The draft bill, which has not yet been introduced, would set up an independent board composed of energy industry representatives that could levy a fee on solar, battery and wind projects. The money could be used to fund research and marketing aimed at speeding renewable energy projects.
Talking points circulated with the draft bill say its goal is to pool and organize industry resources to build utility-scale renewable energy faster and eventually bring down ratepayer costs with cheaper renewable energy. They also emphasize “safety awareness,” a nod to the pushback battery projects have received in local communities after a spate of fires.
Early discussions within industry groups, however, have laid bare disagreements over which projects should be eligible and who should control the funding, stalling negotiations. The issue of energy affordability looms large too, and it is generating some opposition to any added fee on new energy.
“I’m just waiting to see if they can agree,” Stern said. “There’s competing industry priorities.”
The state Legislature has until Aug. 31 to pass bills, which must then get a signature from Newsom to become law.
California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild, meanwhile, has convened industry players to discuss the idea of marketing funding, according to an email invite obtained by POLITICO.
Niki Woodard, a spokesperson for the California Energy Commission, said the agency does not comment on pending legislation but added that “we support efforts that help California deploy clean energy resources faster in support of our climate and energy affordability goals.”
A bill to create a checkoff program was also floated this year in Virginia, although it was unsuccessful.
The checkoff model
Commodity checkoff campaigns have been widely used in the agriculture sector, supporting products such as eggs, beef, cotton, Haas avocados, softwood lumber and even Christmas trees.
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service currently oversees 21 research and promotion boards. The campaigns must focus on generic promotion, rather than ads for individual products, and can’t include political lobbying.
It’s still unclear what a solar checkoff campaign would look like. The bill introduced in Virginia would have placed a 2-cent-per-watt fee on new solar projects and energy storage systems, with proceeds going to a state treasury fund managed by a 13-member promotion board.
The draft legislation circulated in California this year would impose a similar 1.3-cent-per-watt fee on solar panels. That would add roughly 0.65 percent to the estimated $2-per-watt cost of commercial solar and 0.45 percent to the $2.90-per-watt cost of rooftop solar, according to federal figures.
The bill would also create a $2-per-kilowatt surcharge for energy storage and a $7-per-kilowatt-hour fee for land-based wind projects. The members of the board overseeing the money all would come from the renewable energy industry.
According to a memo circulated as part of the California discussions, the solar fee could raise between $35 million and $81 million per year. The storage fee could raise between $61 million and $86 million.
Many developers, however, question whether that fee is worthwhile, especially when the economics of solar power have made it one of the cheapest new sources of energy.
Even “Got Milk,” while a brand awareness juggernaut, did not stem a decline in cow’s milk consumption.
Some industry officials granted anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations said it might be better to just let solar win on the economic merits alone. Others said there was disagreement over which types of projects should pay a checkoff fee and who should control the resulting funding.
Supporters of the program say it’s a necessary step to get a leg up in Washington, especially after recent policy defeats have left companies sore over federal lobbying failures. For example, industry veteran Steve McBee recently launched a fundraising and advocacy group to shake up traditional clean energy lobbying.
By the numbers, the Solar Energy Industries Association spent $2.8 million on federal lobbying in 2025, by far the group’s biggest outlay, according to data from OpenSecrets. The American Clean Power Association spent more than $5 million that year, also the group’s biggest year.
But those totals pale in comparison to more established energy interests. The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, spent $9.4 million that year. The American Petroleum Institute spent $7.8 million, and even individual companies such as Occidental Petroleum and Exxon Mobil outspent the clean energy groups on their own.
SEIA declined to comment. A spokesperson for the American Clean Power Association said the group is not participating in checkoff conversations and declined to comment.
An industry official granted anonymity to discuss the fluid negotiations said the checkoff program is not designed to compete with existing lobbying groups and that the checkoff funds would not support any direct staff. Instead, a governing board would make grants that could go to ACP or SEIA to address the “noneconomic barriers to accelerated deployment of zero-fuel-cost clean energy.”
“However,” the source added, “neither SEIA nor ACP have substantial state and local presence, which is where these barriers to deployment show up, so there is a gap to close.”
The Coalition to Power America, which worked with Stern on the California bill and also advocated for the Virginia bill, is founded by Tom Matzzie, the CEO of CleanChoice Energy.
Matzzie, who has also bankrolled efforts to oust elected officials who oppose renewable energy, declined to comment.
The industry must also navigate issues beyond Washington, with policies around land use, permitting and incentives differing across states, utilities, counties and local governments.
“Trump’s actions are federal, but at the end of the day these projects are implemented at the local level,” said KC Becker, the head of the Colorado Solar and Storage Association and a former speaker of the Colorado House.
“And that takes resources to show up and understand where local governments are or their level of engagement and knowledge,” Becker added. “That means working with municipalities, utilities, building departments, every level of the government.”
Andrew Birch, the founder of the Australian company Open Solar who has also worked in the U.S., said there is a challenge with rooftop solar, which is more expensive in the U.S. than other countries in large part because of slow permitting rules that delay installations. Birch has advocated for the industry to push a federal permitting process to ease the delays and lower costs but said there has been little engagement.
“In the states, we can’t get through the barrier of permitting reform until we get organized as an industry,” Birch said. “We’re an industry that employs several thousand people in every state. Why does the coal industry have such a massive lobby? If we behave like the energy industry that we are, we should have a much bigger presence.”
