House Energy panel weighs safety and consumer protections for plug-in portable solar devices in S202

Rep. Kathleen James convened the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure hearing on S202, a bill to regulate plug-in portable solar photovoltaic devices, and called testimony from state fire-safety officials and the Attorney General's Office.

Michael D. Roer, executive director of the Division of Fire Safety, told the committee the division is "not opposing it. We're probably neutral," and said the bill’s safety framework is acceptable so long as devices meet the UL 3700 standard. Roer and Dennis Blair, chief electrical inspector, urged caution about the many unlisted, internet‑sold devices that do not meet recognized standards and can create hazards when tied into household wiring.

Blair explained the electrical concerns in plain terms: "If a receptacle is designed to only export power, you can't import power to it," and said UL 3700 mitigates that by requiring a dedicated branch circuit and a specific plug/receptacle arrangement. Panelists said branch circuits sized for typical receptacles (15–20 amps) could be overloaded if a portable generator or plug‑in PV device is added to circuits already running other loads; the witnesses noted a representative maximum system allowance discussed in the hearing of about 1,200 watts (roughly 10 amps) as a working example.

Both officials described a practical inspection and installation distinction: owner‑performed work with state inspection for one‑ and two‑unit owner‑occupied dwellings, and licensed‑electrician installations for three or more units. Roer warned that compliance requirements will increase costs: he used a rough example of a $2,500 device plus electrician fees, and said that payback estimates cited in prior testimony (roughly $150–$200 per year in savings) could translate to a long (20–25 year) payback period depending on household usage.

The committee discussed how other states have approached the devices. Representatives cited Utah and Virginia examples: Virginia’s statute, panelists said, limits certain plug‑in devices by wattage (committee discussion referenced a figure near 390 watts in the Virginia example) while Utah and other states are still shaping standards and implementation paths.

Todd Dos, Assistant Attorney General, framed the proposal as squarely within the AGO’s consumer‑protection authority (Title 9, Chapter 63). He said the AGO can act against unfair or deceptive marketing and that consumer payback claims are often challenging to litigate because of usage, appliance changes, and energy‑price variability. "If somebody's selling these because there's nothing here that prescribes how it's marketed...we would certainly be able to act on those that were deemed unfair or deceptive," Dos told lawmakers.

The AGO also addressed potential utility and landlord‑tenant liability. Dos said he did not see an obvious path to widespread utility liability—utilities generally argue their line of responsibility stops at the meter—but acknowledged utilities and some stakeholders want explicit statutory clarity to avoid muddying that line. On landlord‑tenant questions, witnesses said whether liability rests with a landlord or a tenant depends on whether the device is a landlord‑installed fixture or a tenant‑brought appliance; panelists noted Virginia’s approach that allows landlords of very small portfolios to prohibit devices while limiting such prohibitions for larger landlords.

Committee members asked the Division of Fire Safety to arrange fire‑service testimony at a future meeting. No formal motions or votes were taken. The committee scheduled a follow‑up session to review Utah and Virginia legislative language with Ledge Council and to receive invited fire‑service testimony.

The panel identified several implementation challenges for lawmakers to weigh: enforcement mechanisms for devices sold online but used in Vermont, whether statute should explicitly prohibit sale or use of non‑UL‑3700 devices, consumer education needs, potential cost barriers for renters if dedicated circuits are required, and coordination with utilities on interconnection and anti‑islanding safeguards.

Next action: the committee will reconvene with Ledge Council and invited fire‑service and utility witnesses to examine out‑of‑state language and practical enforcement options.