House Energy Digital Infrastructure committee opens markup of S202, seeks UL clarification on plug‑in photovoltaic safety

Representative Kathleen James convened the House Energy Digital Infrastructure committee on April 2 to begin a first markup of S202, the bill that would regulate plug‑in photovoltaic devices (plug‑in PV or PIPV). She told members the goal was to convert prior testimony into specific bill edits and to clarify whether referenced safety standards already cover the committee’s concerns. "We’re gonna have multiple questions about UL 3700, and does our bill include all of these important things?" James said, adding, "Maybe, like, we want live testimony."

The committee focused on safety and certification more than immediate policy changes. Members discussed whether the bill should require a dedicated receptacle or circuit for plug‑in devices and whether UL 3700’s test requirements already incorporate inverter standards such as UL 1741 and IEEE 1547 or the National Electrical Code (NEC). Committee members noted that testimony and white papers suggested UL 3700 addresses many component‑level hazards — shock, fire and backfeed — but that the written materials left open whether the standard’s testing yields formal certification for installed products. Members agreed the bill should require certification, not merely testing, if the standard’s certification process exists and applies.

Technical questions included whether the bill should specify "inverter" capacity rather than panel capacity, how small‑unit exemptions might affect safety and uptake, and whether a low‑wattage ceiling could reduce the need for rewiring. A committee member said UL 3700, as described in testimony, is focused on unit testing and that "there are no products yet certified" under that regime, prompting members to flag certification language for clarification.

Jurisdiction and interconnection were another focus. The committee discussed proposed subsection language making devices subject to interconnection agreements with electric distribution companies or otherwise under Public Utility Commission (PUC) jurisdiction. The PUC and utilities also recommended clarifying whether exported generation from a portable device would be compensated; the committee agreed draft language should say generation "exported to the grid" by such devices "shall not be compensated."

Members debated landlord and multifamily rules after reviewing Virginia’s approach. Virginia’s statute explicitly addresses unit‑level installations in multifamily buildings, landlord permission rules and notification requirements; the committee considered whether to require landlord notice, allow tenant‑paid rewiring, or require landlord consent in some buildings. Several members cautioned that a strict landlord‑consent regime could make installations infeasible for most renters, and they flagged the tradeoffs between renter access and building safety/installation costs.

The committee also agreed to add targeted local‑government limits — for example, height/setback and historic‑preservation compliance — while preserving the bill’s prohibition on municipal bylaws that would outright ban plug‑in devices. Members discussed clarifying that local zoning and historic‑preservation rules could govern placement (height/setbacks) but not a categorical prohibition.

On liability and cost recovery, the committee reviewed proposed language allowing a distribution utility to recover costs associated with service overloading caused by a plug‑in device. Committee staff and industry representatives said an explicit utility "no‑liability" clause was unnecessary because existing law already addresses liability; that clause was not pursued further. Committee members said utilities did not want a mandatory notification requirement and that the committee would not reinsert notification after utilities objected. "I heard from all the utilities that they very profoundly did not wanna be notified," James said.

At the end of the session members agreed on next steps: staff will compile suggested edits into a single draft, the committee will send a written question list and a letter to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) asking which requirements UL 3700 includes (and whether UL 1741/IEEE 1547/NEC are incorporated), and the committee will request written responses and in‑person testimony from UL. The committee also plans to invite landlords and insurance companies for testimony. Scheduling for final testimony was left "to be determined."

The committee did not take votes on S202 during this session; it treated the meeting as a technical markup and information‑gathering step to refine statutory language and confirm which technical standards must be referenced or incorporated before any formal vote.