Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plug In Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing on plug‑in solar highlights access, safety and export controls debate
Summary
Senators and dozens of witnesses debated LD 17 30, a bill to authorize small plug‑in solar devices for renters and homeowners. Supporters said systems can be inexpensive and expand access; opponents pressed safety, insurance, and building‑code costs. A key technical dispute centered on requiring zero‑export controls versus relying on UL/NEC anti‑islanding standards and meters.
The committee held an extensive public hearing on LD 17 30, sponsored by Senator Nicole Grochowski, to consider a bill that would create a class of small "plug‑in" solar systems (commonly called balcony solar) and exempt eligible systems from full interconnection procedures while imposing safety requirements.
Sponsor testimony: Senator Grochowski said the amendment limits systems to 1,200 watts per service address, requires UL‑listed inverters (UL 1741 family), anti‑islanding functions that prevent energizing the grid during outages, and a simple notification process for utilities rather than an interconnection study or fee. The amendment also directs building‑code changes for new multiunit buildings to include an outdoor branch circuit per dwelling unit.
Proponents: Nonprofits, industry representatives and the public advocacy office supported the bill as a low‑cost pathway to expand access for renters, low‑income households and young people. Cost estimates presented ranged from a few hundred dollars for very small systems up to roughly $3,000 for larger 2 kW systems; the public advocate estimated an 800‑watt system could save about $350/year for a typical household.
Opposition and technical concerns: Utilities and insurance representatives urged caution. Versant Power recommended waiting for updated UL/NEC code work and supported robust device certification before statewide adoption; insurance companies warned about potential coverage implications if the bill mandates insurance language in Title 35‑A. Municipal officials objected to a statutory mandate requiring new multiunit buildings to be "solar ready," citing construction cost impacts.
Export control debate: A central technical dispute was whether to require a hard zero‑export control (which typically requires additional hardware and potentially an electrician) or to rely on anti‑islanding and power‑management solutions that use meters and batteries to prevent exports in practice. Industry witnesses described commercially available zero‑export products and dynamic power management that monitor household consumption to prevent export; advocates warned hardwired zero‑export requirements would raise costs and limit portability for renters.
Next steps: The committee did not vote on LD 17 30 in this sitting and signaled that the technical questions — UL/NEC certification, the insurance/Title 35‑A language, and the building‑circuit requirement — will be central to the work session. DOER and the PUC indicated willingness to supply technical and docketed comments for the committee's work session.
