Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Portable Solar Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Energy and Digital Infrastructure panel hears support and warnings on S202 portable solar bill
Summary
Witnesses told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee they back S202as writtenif safety standards are met, urging UL 3700 certification, stronger consumer‑protection language and explicit liability rules so utilities need not absorb damage costs; no vote was taken.
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee heard testimony on S202, a bill that would authorize portable solar energy generation devices, with witnesses and utilities broadly supporting the concept while pressing for clearer safety, consumer‑protection and liability language.
TJ Poor of the Department of Public Service said the department "continues to support the general concept of S202" but placed safety and consumer protections at the center of its analysis. Poor read from a UL Solutions white paper describing the new UL 3700 listing and quoted its conclusion: "Special risk mitigation requirements are necessary to allow the safe use of plug‑in photovoltaic products." He urged the committee to require or reference UL 3700 compliance and suggested revising bill text that uses the net‑metering term "excess generation" so it instead refers to "generation exported to the grid," noting the bill as drafted does not provide compensation for exported generation.
The utilities and co‑ops that followed said they are not opposed to portable solar as an appliance but warned of practical and legal risks. Andrea Cohen of Electric Cooperative said the Senate changes addressed many concerns but called for sharper liability language. "We totally disagree with TJ's take" in one respect, she told the committee, arguing utilities must be able to seek compensation if a customer's device damages distribution equipment rather than passing costs onto other members. Cohen and other witnesses also urged stronger consumer‑protection disclosures so buyers understand payback periods and potential risks.
Lewis Border, general manager of Washington Electric Co‑op, said the UL listing "gives me a lot of confidence that both the line workers and the people who have these in their homes will be protected," but he opposed a mandatory registration system for portable appliances. Border warned that a registration requirement would blur the line between customer responsibility (what happens inside the meter) and utility responsibility, and would impose administrative cost and compliance burdens without clear benefit.
Ken Nolan of the Vermont Public Power Supply Authority echoed utilities' worker‑safety concerns and said line crews remain uneasy "without a physical disconnect" even if products are UL‑listed; he and others said they could provide liability language modeled on bills in Utah and Virginia that make explicit the utility is not liable for customer devices.
Committee members also questioned metering and power‑quality issues. Witnesses said advanced metering infrastructure can measure by channel and time increment and that the bill's size limits and the absence of compensation distinguish small portable plug‑in PV devices from larger batteries or vehicle‑to‑grid systems that require separate interconnection and registration.
No formal action was taken. The chair closed the day's testimony and said the committee would be on the floor at 1:00 and would reconvene the following morning at 9:00 for more testimony on S202.
