Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plug In Solar Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Insurance trade representative says plug‑in solar devices are treated like home appliances; no current market‑wide rate impact
Summary
Jamie Fien of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association told the Senate Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that insurers currently treat portable/plug‑in solar devices similarly to home appliances (covered under personal property sections of homeowners and renters policies) and that insurers are not yet seeing claims driving rate increases, though underwriting could change if claims emerge.
Jamie Fien, testifying for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), told the Senate Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that, for now, insurers typically treat plug‑in or portable residential solar devices as personal property similar to other home appliances.
"Insurers are treating these portable solar devices similar to an appliance — a home appliance," Fien said, explaining that coverage is usually provided under the personal property portion of a homeowner's policy and that policyholders can add endorsements if they want higher limits.
Fien said APCIA members, which represent a large share of the Vermont market, are not currently seeing claims activity tied to these devices that would push underwriting or drive rate changes. "We're not seeing any claims activity that are driving loss trends from the use of these," he said, adding the caveat that insurers may revisit underwriting standards if claims emerge.
Committee members raised landlord/tenant questions after the bill text was amended to note that landlords must give permission for tenants to plug devices into dwelling wiring. Fien said landlords typically carry their own commercial policies for building structures and that renters' policies generally cover personal property; he advised tenants and landlords to coordinate with insurers and agents about coverage and any necessary endorsements.
Members also questioned technical safety concerns — in particular whether portable devices could back‑feed building circuits and create overcurrent hazards that a breaker might not detect. The committee discussed relevant safety standards, and a participant noted that overcurrent issues are addressed by the UL 3700 standard as part of device certification work under consideration.
Fien emphasized that coverage and liability depend on cause and underwriting: if a device fails or improper installation causes damage, insurers will examine the causal chain to determine coverage under dwelling, personal property or liability sections of a policy.
What’s next: the committee heard Fien’s answers and did not record any vote; staff will continue drafting bill language to align safety standards, landlord permission language, and consumer protections.
