Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Portable Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Energy panel reviews portable solar rules and differences in Virginia, Utah and S.202 draft
Summary
Lawmakers reviewed Virginia and Utah portable‑solar statutes while comparing them to Vermont draft S.202, noting shared definitions, interconnection exemptions, landlord limits, and a 1,200‑watt threshold applied differently across states.
Representative Kathleen James opened the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure briefing by saying the committee would review recent portable solar laws in other states and how those models relate to draft S.202.
The presentation summarized Virginia’s statute as defining a “small portable solar generation device” as a movable photovoltaic unit designed to plug into a building outlet, limited to 1,200 watts per customer (or per residential building unit in multi‑family housing), and required to include a feature that prevents exporting power to the grid or energizing a building’s electrical system during a power outage. The presenter noted Virginia exempts devices that deliver not more than 391 W at the receptacle from product‑listing rules that would otherwise require changes to wiring or panels. The presenter said Virginia also forbids localities from outright prohibiting such devices but allows compliance with zoning height/setback and historic‑district design rules.
The committee then reviewed tenant‑landlord provisions in the Virginia law: landlords owning more than four rental units (or holding more than a 10% interest in more than four units) may not prohibit tenants from installing a qualifying portable device, though landlords may set “reasonable restrictions” on size, placement and manner and require seven days’ notice with proof the device meets statutory requirements. The presenter read that tenants remain responsible for damage caused by an installed device and that certain rental arrangements governed by ratio utility billing are excluded from the right to install portable devices.
Both Virginia and Utah, the presenter said, exempt qualifying portable devices from interconnection agreements and net‑metering programs and bar utilities from charging installation fees or requiring pre‑approval. The Virginia text requires customers to notify the electric service provider using a commission form; the utility then has 15 days to respond and correct deficiencies, after which the notification is deemed satisfied and the customer may install the device. Utilities may install an automatic blocking disconnect at properties with multiple devices or where the distribution circuit requires it.
The committee noted Utah’s law—effective May 5, 2025—contains similar language, including a 1,200‑watt cap and the anti‑export/anti‑energize requirement, and that Utah explicitly excluded portable systems from certain customer‑generation programs. Lawmakers emphasized that the three jurisdictions share the goal of allowing outlet‑connected portable generation while limiting any safety or grid‑integration risks.
Committee members asked whether the statutory references to a “nationally recognized testing laboratory” (cited in the federal regulation 29 CFR 1910.7) align with equipment standards such as UL 3700; counsel advised the committee that the statutes use different formulations and that further clarification from standards experts may be needed. Representative Kathleen James thanked lead counsel for preparing the materials as members wrapped up the discussion.
The committee did not take formal action during this briefing; members paused the livestream and scheduled the next presenter.
