Utilities urge clearer safety, compensation rules for portable solar bill

The Natural Resources & Energy committee heard from multiple Vermont utilities on Jan. 15 about S.202, a bill to allow small portable solar devices. Witnesses said they support broader access to renewables but urged the Legislature to tighten the bill on worker safety, metering and compensation.

Ken Nolan, general manager of GEBCO, told the committee the bill is a good starting point but flagged two critical weaknesses: he said UL certification or listing alone is unlikely to prove, in practice, that a device will reliably disconnect from the grid during outages, and he urged an enforceable verification mechanism to protect utility workers. “Without a specific enforcement mechanism, we’re very concerned that our workers’ safety will be an issue,” Nolan said.

Nolan and other utility witnesses also urged the bill to be explicit about compensation for exported power. The draft disqualifies these devices from net metering but does not clearly state whether utilities must compensate customers for any power sent to the grid. Nolan said Vermont’s net‑metering compensation calculations are complex and costly to customize, and that the safest legislative route is to state whether there is compensation or that there is none.

Lewis Porter of Washington Electric Co‑op said the bill should require system‑level vetting by UL Solutions, not only component listings, and that if the Legislature intends to avoid the customary permitting and CPG process, the bill should make clear that these portable systems may not export to the grid. He noted disputes with members over metering can be expensive: “We just spent $20,000 in a year‑long process with a net meterer,” he said, arguing the attorney general’s consumer protection division is the appropriate forum for most post‑sale complaints.

Green Mountain Power and other distribution utilities echoed those points. Candace Morgan of Green Mountain Power said she supports the concept but emphasized consumer education about performance claims — manufacturers’ assertions of a specific payback period may be difficult to verify without production records — and reiterated the importance of an anti‑export feature to protect lineworkers.

Witnesses and committee members spent several exchanges clarifying how analog (non‑smart) meters would register generation. Chair Sid noted that older meters would simply run more slowly if generation temporarily reduced load and that smart meters could show hourly exports. Several utilities suggested the bill include two thresholds and different requirements by threshold — for example, a smaller UL‑certified threshold and a higher threshold subject to additional checks — and to define export limits on a per‑dwelling or per‑meter basis to avoid aggregation that could exceed local distribution equipment limits.

No formal vote was taken. Committee members said the issues appear fixable in drafting and asked staff to coordinate language with the PUC and the Department of Public Service on meter and safety questions. The committee took a short break and then moved on to a separate bill on commercial property assessed clean energy financing.

The committee indicated it will return to S.202 with amended language addressing verification of disconnect features, explicit compensation language, unit‑sizing clarity, and consumer‑education or consumer‑protection provisions.