Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: We're live.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Wednesday, March 25, we are here with Michael Dara Torre, Director of the Division of Fire Safety, to talk about S202, and actually portable solar energy generation devices. I'm R. Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: Territory, Washington 2.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Futland, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the room. Audrey Lida, interning with representative Barton. Great. Katie Irby, interning with senator Watson. Super. Alright. And we have someone joining us online.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Yes. Dennis Blair, chief electrical inspector, division fire safety.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. And for the record also?

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Michael Dara Torre, Executive Director for the Division of Fire Safety.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. Alright. Over to you.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Alright. Well, first of all, what was nice about this bill out of the gate was the fact that Senator Watson had reached out to the Division of Fire Safety with some draft language initially. We did have the opportunity to weigh in on some of the language from the very beginning, which to me, that was for us, that was nice that we have that opportunity to engage in conversations. Right. Our position with this bill is we're we're we're not opposing it. We're we're probably neutral. A little bit of this is whether the car is a little bit in front of the horse here. And and the reason I say that is the language in here referencing UL 3,700, that is a standard in which manufacturers of this equipment will have to meet those specific safety guidelines and standards. I'm not sure how many manufacturers we have now that actually have that UL listing or certification. Yeah. Because this is fairly like an emerging issue across the country. I think there's possibly 25 or 26 states now that are seeing some type of legislation being introduced. Some states have gone to studying it further because nobody really knows how to put their hand on this thing. So the UL 3,700 standard is a pretty good start, right? It addresses a lot of the safety issues. I think this as it's written right here, as far as a fire safety perspective is pretty solid. The concern we have, of course, is all the unlisted and all the untested equipment that you could purchase online now, it's Amazon or any of these online platforms, where you're taking appliances that have a power output and injecting it into a system that has power, receiving power. You can't do the National Electrical Code doesn't allow that to take place. So you're you're not supposed to be taking, like, something that generates electricity through a plug and plug it into your existing electrical system. Okay. You're back feeding an electrical system that is designed to provide output on that circuit. And Dennis can certainly speak about it. That's the question.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Remark? So when when if generators

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you know, just a home generator that's equipped so it you're plugging it in on the other side of the panel.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Where I'm gonna have Dennis speak. Dennis could speak to all the technical aspects of this so don't get myself in trouble. So there is a consumer element. The other thing I would say here is that under the UL standard, you have to have a dedicated electrical circuit for these. So that means that the plug is going to have to be plugged into a specific outlet receptacle. If you're outside a single family owner occupied home, then we regulate that particular circuit that's gonna be added. That means that somebody, if it's a one or two family dwelling, the owner can file the work notice with us. They can actually do the wiring themselves, but it does get inspected by our state electrical inspector. So there is gonna be an electrical work notice required down the road once the manufacturers get this all situated. And that's gonna drive the cost of these units upright. Somebody's gonna have to hire a licensed master electrician to come in and put that dedicated circuit in. So now these units may be $2,500. I'm just using that as a rough figure. So then you add the cost of the master electrician. You know, you're looking at a twenty, twenty five year payback period on the projected savings of a 150 or $200 annually, which is because I've listened to other previous testimony, that's what's been raised. So that's basically a quick rundown. We're we're gonna be neutral on this. So my my question, he he said that the owner of

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: a building can't do the wiring in a one to two fam two family or two unit building, but it has to be inspected. But then above that, it's three fam for three units and a has to be done by a licensed electrician. Correct. Okay. Just wanna make sure I understood that. And

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: the other issue we have on the consumer side is we don't regulate appliances. So if there's no wiring done, we don't regulate an appliance. Like if somebody wants to plug a fan in or an air conditioner, we're not regulating that under our electrical safety rules. A so as we sit right now, obviously, from a safety perspective, our concern is all these other systems that are out there that haven't been tested, and, you know, we're relying on the consumers to install these systems correctly. So but as far as this bill goes, some of the other states have gone to studies, like special legislative studies until they can grapple with all this stuff. So but the language here from a safety perspective seems pretty solid to me.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So one of the other states we're looking at is Virginia. They allowed one unit, and it was under a certain wattage, which I think was stipulated in the bill. They allow one to be plugged in to a regular outlet without specialist a dedicated circuit, I believe. Do you have a Yeah. An opinion on that?

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: I don't, but Dennis can answer that. I just know there's there's electrical hazard concerns with plugging these into a to an existing electrical system. Even if you have, like, knob and tube wiring in some of our existing homes here and so forth, I think Dennis can speak to that.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Go ahead, Mike. I'm a person.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Any concerns from firefighting, firefighters side of the table?

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: I've had a number of conversations with the fire service. They were on the fence with this, but it's some of it I think is not being familiar with it, right? Not being aware of this. So I have mentioned to him the UL 3700 standard, the language we have offered to the fire service to meet with Dennis, and Dennis can explain the whole entire concept of this. I mean, it wouldn't hurt the committee. If the committee wants to hear from the fire service, I can easily make that connection so you can bring someone here from the fire service.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, had a question on you you mentioned that the electrical code, national electrical code, the national electrical code does not allow the two eighty kind of generation into a that's not not not at the panel, but it was at at the at the branch or so

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: No. I didn't I didn't say a generator. I'm gonna let Dennis Okay. Alright.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It might it might be I figured it might be a dentist. I just wanna ask you on the on the on the COVID issue about Yeah. I wanted to clarify what you said. Sure. But let's ask Dennis. Hi,

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dennis.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: What's your question?

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, I I thought your boss said that the NEC does not allow plugging an appliance that generates electricity into a circuit. Did I hear that correctly?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: The NEC regulates how a circuit's used and how it needs to be installed. And currently, given a a branch circuit with a receptacle that's utilized or is installed to only export power to an appliance. It's not designed and listed specifically to import power to a an electrical infrastructure system within a house.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So is it disallowed by DC?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: By default, yes. If a receptacle is designed to only export power, you can't import power to it. So the UL3700 covers that base by saying a dedicated branch circuit needs to be installed for this device with a specific plug type and receptacle.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right, okay.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: So as long as somebody is adhering to the UL 3,700 standard, we've got that base covered for now. I anticipate the NEC will start writing some code specific to plug in photovoltaic at some point. UL jumped on this as a priority because they saw it as a pretty big movement in The States. And that's how we arrived at this 3,700 white paper so quickly. Usually it takes a couple of years to generate something like that. This was done in a relatively short amount of time when I think Utah and California started the conversation last year.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. Well, that seems like that would disallow what Brett Morrow mentioned seems to be in the Virginia law or the Virginia bill that would allow a plug in PV in a branch circuit, not a dedicated circuit, long as the wattage was less than I think it's 390 watt watts or something like that. But that seems like that would be disallowed by national code.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: The UL 3,700 standard it would be disallowed. So anybody building that system and testing it to that 3,700 would most likely indicate with the installation instruction manuals provided with that system that a branch circuit and a specific plug type needs to be installed with it.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Okay, thanks.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: And I wanna know on the you had a question regarding the one and two family. Just for clarification, we do not inspect the single family owner occupied home.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: The only single family would be a rental type unit.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right. I'm aware. Thank you.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Doctor. Southworth?

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Could you explain potential issues, dangers associated with someone not plugging it into a circuit by the UL 3,700 requirements?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Yeah, overcurrent seems to be the biggest concern and the, touch shock hazard with a cord end, a male cord end that would plug into a receptacle from the generation device. So you guys have probably heard the overcurrent discussion. Branch circuits only good for 15 or 20 amps. The proposed system maximum allowance is going to be 1,200 watts. That's about 10 amps. So if you had other appliances plugged into that same branch circuit that would accumulate enough capacity to go over that then theoretically we have an overcurrent condition.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: If it was hardwired like for a portable standby generator on the other side of the panel that would mitigate that

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: problem. Correct?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Portable Standby Yeah. Yeah. That's something that would feed into a panel directly. That receptacle is designed to import power to a home's distribution system. It's designed and listed for that. That would only, you know, it either comes from a panel that does transfer switching or to a backfed breaker that is interlocked with a main that that would have to be disconnected. I don't know if that answered your question, but

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It it does. Thank you. Yeah.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So just to be clear, people who have backup generators in case of power outage have those hardwired into their into their surface panels. That's how they're installed, right?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Correct.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Just a little fun fact, there is a thing called a suicide cord which has two male ends on it. People have been known to plug into a generator and then back feed a receptacle in the home, which in theory does back feed the whole panel. Those are frowned upon because there's no way to disconnect or there's no regulation or anything that forces you to disconnect the main from the utility grid, which is one of the things we're concerned with with generation back feeding the grid could potentially put high voltage back onto the utility lines where you may have a line worker working in the event of a storm or an outage. Hence the interlocking devices, transfer switches, Most of the things that I've read up on the plug in photovoltaic is the inverters that are used are anti islanding, which means they cannot export any power unless they see a utility sine wave or utility power so they would disconnect in the event of an outage. And there's an IEEE standard I think applied to that one, which is recognized also by that UL 3,700 standard.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yep, good. Thank you.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have additional questions, for the folks from DPS? Yeah. From Southworth.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I just, wanted did you hear that request fire service?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Did not hear that. Okay.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Could we have somebody from fire service come in? And mister said that he could set that for us. Great.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just send if you could just email me and or our committee assistant with the name of who should come testify.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Sure. Great.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: So we have a coalition of all the fire service membership, so we all get together on a monthly basis. We'll take care of

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: that. Sounds good. Okay. Well, I guess just to sum up is as long as these things adhere to UL 3,700, Division of Fire Safety is okay with it.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Right. Yeah. We're we're to what Dennis stated, I think what you're gonna find is just like there's hundreds of emerging issue and trends that are out there, and these are safety things that impact consumers as well as the fire service. It's forever a moving target, and the codes and the standards have a tendency to lag behind all these. So the technology always seems to come first, and then the safety standards are then employed. So we have this grace period where we're trying to do proactive fire prevention measures in the meantime until these standards can be met. That's where we are right now. We're in this kind of a grace period. We ran through this with carbon monoxide technology as well years ago where you couldn't connect it on the building fire alarm systems, the sensing technology. So we had to resort to residential type CO alarms in our nursing homes and all these different places to compensate for the lack of codes and standards on that. So

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: that's interesting. I heard a couple things that I didn't know. One was that maybe we heard this from UL, but that UL had seen bills moving or seen this technology moving and moved quickly to get 3,700 into place. One thing I actually hadn't thought about until this moment, but I want to make sure I'm thinking about it correctly, about what comes first, the chicken or the egg. So we've got the standards in place. The standards address these concerns. So without this bill, a Vermonter could go online and buy one of these things right now that's not certified and plug it in with nothing in state statute saying that there's anything to prevent them from doing it.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Right. Other than other than us piggybacking on to the NEC that if we came across it, we could say this isn't permitted.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: You know?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because one of the things we think about a lot sometimes is like, well, do we need to do anything?

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: We we we

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: thinking this through right now, it's sort of like, well, I could I could go online and buy one tomorrow from Johnny's plug in solar emporium Nice. And have it shipped to me and plug it in. Yeah. And yeah. I Yeah.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: If I may. Yeah. Joe down the street has already done that as his woodworking shop in Essex and melted a receptacle by back feeding into it. So there's your case in point. I already have history of a plug in solar device that has created a meltdown in an electrical circuit or specifically the receptacle, probable loose connection. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we actually don't have.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Yes, that's already

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: around this right now.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: That's already out there, right? So the other thing that does regulate to some extent, I don't know where the utilities stance finally landed on that, but to export generate power and put it back on the utility has always been a concern.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, we've been talking to the utilities quite a bit. They've, I have to look back through my notes.

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: R. Torre? Well, seems as more states approve this with the UL 700, that will drive the market to produce stuff. Right, the same. And

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: then we'll put Johnny out of business.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: We have the same issue with you know, EV bikes, scooters, hoverboards, the whole nine yards. You know, it's been the same same scenario. You know, you can go online and mix match all the charging units and stuff, and it comes down right to the consumer saving money. So

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm just curious, like, do consumers get their education on, like, two? Whose website?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: YouTube. That's

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: where everybody gets their information. Google AI. There's a lot of do it yourselfers out there, and there's a lot of people that are willing to put everything that they know out there as well. Good and bad.

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: But on the state front, do we have any best practices that we make available to the public?

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: The division releases information at times.

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: The division?

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: Yeah. I mean, we do a lot of training and outreach, especially to the fire service on the response side and the hazard side and stuff like this, but we we do have work to do on the public education side of this.

[Dennis Blair (Chief Electrical Inspector, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: I might offer Mike that we put something on our division page regarding the plug in solar and it, you know, being required just to reiterate what the bill is stating.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Not expecting for you, but I guess we could find out whether we can well, to correct it for, if we can outlaw these things that don't if they don't meet you well, 3700, and what happens if we try to do that? Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Doesn't this effectively do that? I mean, by saying

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, we

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: they have to be compliant. We're sort of de facto saying that if it's not compliant, then you're not in compliance with state law. Right. Well,

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: mean I mean, I guess the question is, who is the who is required to comply? Is it the consumer or the owner whoever is selling these units into the state?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that would be such a great question from the attorney general. Wish they were here. Wish they were here. Go and come back. Okay. All right.

[Michael Desrochers (Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety)]: I mean, nationally, there's been, not that I'm speaking on behalf of the National Association of State Fire Marshals, but I'm the president of that association. And we have written letters to Amazon and had unsafe devices and unsafe stuff removed from their online platform. Smoke alarms, CO alarms that were just terrible. So whether this is an item that reaches that threshold, I can explore that at the national level as well. So they've been pretty reactive to us when we ask them to take stuff down. Great. Great. That's good.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And probably one of cheapest units will be found.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Thank you.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I think we can just roll on. Everybody okay with rolling forward? Sure. Alright. Roll on.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Morning. For the record, Todd Daylose, assistant attorney general. Thanks for having me here to talk about I think the agenda said

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I just noticed that and I panicked. This is an S202 combo.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Right? That's what

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm Phew. Ready for. Alright. Did

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: not read S202.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. I didn't I didn't catch that. Alex, can you fix that? Yep. Sorry about that.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I I felt confident that this is what Yeah. So I think just for framing because we don't come into this committee very much, one of the main areas of work that the AGO is involved in is consumer protection. I think the last time I was here, we were talking about regulating the broadband market and sort of where we fit in that space. I would say in in, the kind of product contemplated under s two zero two, this is much more within our lane of consumer product. There may be, representations made about the product, and the real question is, are they unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace? That's really the core of our consumer's work. That's what title nine sixty three really covers. There are a lot of nuances around that. The legislature has done a lot of work providing additional clarifications around unfair and deceptive practices and acts in specific areas of commerce. And so I I would say for the purpose of this bill, insofar as there are concerns around what the representations are being made to consumers and how confirmable they are, you know, we would certainly be able to act on those that were deemed unfair or deceptive. I will say, in the solar marketplace, and this is going back maybe more than ten years now, there were concerns around when when there was a lot of money in rooftop solar and in in fixed solar arrays, I guess, would call them. And a lot of the, you know, the marketing was, hey. Listen. The payback cost on this is ten years. You'll be paying the same amount for the installation as you were paying for your electrical bill, and then you'll just be saving tons of money thereafter. We got a lot of complaints when people weren't seeing those savings even out, and they're very, very challenging consumer cases to manage, or I don't mean manage, but really prove because there are a lot of variables. I think this committee's heard a lot about those variables. Right? What's the usage rate from day one to day 15? What are the appliance, changes that may occur which impact the usage rate? What's the cost of energy over time, and and how does that square up? And then there's how how effective is this input, whether it's fixed solar or, in this case, portable solar, in kind of bringing down those costs in comparison. So I share that because I just wanna be clear. It you know, somebody's selling one of these portable devices and saying, hey. Listen. It's gonna pay for itself in five years given your usage rate. And then the person's five years later, six years later says it's really not. That's a that's not a necessarily a slam dunk case for us. So I think what I see here is also a good opportunity for a lot of consumer education. And I think that can be done in partnership with with utilities. I think it can be done in partnership with other stakeholders in this space. But I mostly wanted to frame it in that way because I think that was sort of the main thrust of what you're interested from us on a consumer handle. I think there are a couple legal questions that I'll I'll juggle if you've got them, recognizing, I think, ledge counsel's also capable of giving some answers there. But was there more you want on the consumer front? And then I'm happy to kinda talk about utility liability. I think there was a question there. Yeah. The landlord tenant liability, there was a question there. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I so I just wanna make sure I heard what you said correctly. Because one larger question we had is or one larger question I had was if somebody has a complaint about one of these devices, Do you guys have the tools you need? Is there anything we need to do in state statute? It sounds like this would we don't need to start adding little nibbets to the title that covers basic consumer. I don't know. I'm not sure why we would call out one particular kind of device.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Yeah. I mean, that's a very good question. I would say there are other places where the legislature has determined that it's important to make clear a violation of this piece of the statute or, piece of the title is an unfair and deceptive act of practice in commerce. As I read this, this is straightforward consumer protection. Right? It's if you're you know, take it out of the solar context, I tell you this car only has and to be clear, our our car dealers are actually great partners in all of this. So my example is purely, facetious. But I'm gonna sell you a car, and I tell you it's got, you know, 25,000 miles on it, and it's a twenty twenty two. And then you buy it, and turns out I've messed with the odometer. Don't think you can do that anymore. And it's a, you know, clearly a twenty fifteen. Right? I've been unfair. I've deceived you in the marketplace. You bought the car for me, assuming I'm a gave it to you. That's easy. That that's what's kind of what we're talking about here. Right? We're worried about these devices being marketed in a way that is deceptive to the consumer such that the consumer based on that deception is making a decision to purchase or otherwise engage in in commerce with this product. I I don't think this is a bill as it's drafted that requires any special additional language there. I think we are comfortable with, you know, if somebody's selling these. Because there's nothing here that prescribes how it's marketed. Right? It's really this is the prescriptions are really around safety, and you're just heard from buyer safety on that. I think there is an open question about sort of what's lawful under this in terms of purchasing product that's not underwriter limited, otherwise approved by by, you know, on technical standards and then a maximum number that people plug in. Those are all sort of outside the consumer space, I would say. I'm happy to talk a little bit about the underwriter, the UL side of it.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And then we had some the utilities had a question about liability. I don't know if that's

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: your I I can opine on that. It's

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We love opining. Yeah.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: That's why

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: we all Sometimes. That's right. Yeah.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So on the I saw the language that I think the was it for my electric?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Submitted it. You know, and I I also had a chance as a slide for me to look at Utah and Virginia, which I have somewhere here. And I would say, you know, my read on it, and I would defer to alleged counsel. I don't as I understand how these work, I don't see a path for a lot of liability for, utilities. I think, you know, their counsel's gonna have an opinion on where their liability lies. I don't defend them, and, generally, we don't sue them. So I don't, you know, I don't represent them in any way. But just as another lawyer talking to you, I look at it and I say, it's hard for me to see the path to liability, but I certainly understand why they would want the protection. I just don't know if it's necessary. And you could imagine scenario and, again, this is just from the hip, not their lawyer, but you could imagine a scenario where there was actually a utility issue that wasn't necessarily related to the portable solar, and somehow this becomes protection that was unintended or at least expands litigation around liability. I think also very rare.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: And that suggested language came from came from one particular utility, and then we had testimony from Green Mountain Power, if I'm remembering correctly, basically said, we feel it's pretty clear that our liability stops at the meter, and I think they were more concerned that introducing new language would somehow muddy that very clear line that they feel exists. Yeah. So okay.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: And that strikes me as a very clear policy question for you all, but it Right. I don't don't take issue with whichever utility it was who said that because that would be where it is.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So underwriter limited, I, you know, I think from our lane, it's pretty clear in the statute as drafted. Now I've gotta find out where it says, right, nine c on page one, line 14. So it requires what the what the compliance requirement is. I would say, you know, there may be other avenues for if somebody were to purchase product that didn't comply, we could certainly depending on what the representations that the seller made were. Right? Like, you know, legal to sell in Vermont or you can use it anywhere in Vermont or anything like that when it clearly doesn't meet the statute, that would be a deceptive practice in the marketplace. The use of a device, I I moved from Maine. I bring my portable device and plug it in. I don't know if there's necessarily I would have to think about it a little bit more an avenue for the attorney general to act in that circumstance. Right? Because the consumer has already made the purchase. The purchase was theoretically lawful at the time it was made. It wasn't unfair or deceptive. Then the consumer's using it in a manner that doesn't meet this definition. I do think that's a different scenario and not one where the AG acting on behalf of the state would come in. That could be a fire safety issue. That could be Certainly, maybe a utility issue. I don't actually know about that one, but there would be I think the consumer would have liability there because they're using unregulated and unlicensed product.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: If we pass this.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Yeah. Right. Otherwise, I think they're not lawful as it stands, though

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I haven't actually thought about that question.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Right. In the absence of this, and this is where I'm out of my depth in utility law, I'm not sure what prohibits their use

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Okay. So just can we go back to the scenario where someone buys device that does not meet the standards in the bill, plugs it in, something happens? Where's where's the liability in that situation? So from our lane, right, we're

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: gonna be and at least as I'm thinking about it as the AG's office and especially in the consumer space, if the purchase so there's one scenario where I'm a Vermont consumer and this mark this device is marketed to me in Vermont and it's made, you know, gonna cut my let's put the the deception on that, like, how useful it is to one side and really just talk about I can't use it here. If it doesn't meet these standards, doesn't match the definition of a portable solar generation device, energy generation device, I think that's a deceptive act. The different scenario, the one I posited, I purchased it in a different jurisdiction, moved to Vermont, bring it with me, and plug it in, and it doesn't meet these standards. That's not a consumer. Right? The consumer made a fair purchase in the marketplace. They were not deceived in that purchase. They're using it in a way that may not be lawful. There's no penalty in this bill for that, but it would not meet the standards, and that's where the question of sort of is it prohibited otherwise. And I think I really did not read the bill with that in mind until we started talking about this, so I wanna be a little thoughtful about how much, you know, it I don't think it would have you know, where section two forty eight comes in there would be a different you know, that might be a public service or PUC question. I don't wanna drag them in unnecessarily, but I think it is a question that's open. I assume Legg Council has thought about this, so I don't wanna step on there, Jessica. But in answer to your question, it wouldn't fall under the statute, and therefore, I mean, I think if there's a prohibition to using it, it'd be prohibited. Now where liability falls, the consumer would be unlawfully using this product. That's not really a there's no criminal piece there. Right?

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It won't reform the section, but if yeah. And then what what would you do? Separate the scene.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: And I mean Who would and who would do it? Yeah. I'm not sure it's us, and I think the question is sort of what happens with any unregulated energy generation device? You know, that strikes me as a PUC issue. We don't generally go after, like, an individual doing any individual act in my sense of criminal. Okay. I I say that broadly. I could come up with dozens of examples, but I don't think they'd be helpful.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Thanks. Yeah.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: It's a very good question. I'm also happy

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: to think about it and, you know, share back if something comes to it. Also, the don't am I interrupting? Have question. The other question is, can Vermont say that no manufacturer or distributor can sell devices in in the state that are not UL 3,700 listed. Can can can we say that? And does it have any effect if we do?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Broadly speaking, and this happens across the hall, right, in commerce, not infrequently. Broadly speaking, you can, with a reasonable basis, prohibit certain unsafe you know, that the argument would be and as I understand it, right, UL is a is an independent body that we generally rely on for the safety of products. That's a reasonable basis to permit or, prohibit the sale of a lot of different things. And I'm you know, there's no special protection that I'm aware of for these kind of generation devices. So, yes, so

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: we could see that from

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: and, again, that's also question for the legislature counsel because they're your attorney, where we said we defend the laws when they get passed, that's a defensible basis.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Do we have any yeah. Just about

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: the the Yep.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. Right.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So that was really interesting. I I dug in a little bit. We had a side conversation last week about it. And, you know, representative Southworth's question, I think, as folks know, it's like, where does liability fall? I'm a tenant. I plugged this in. Generally speaking, and this is based on an aging attorney's recollection of landlord tenant law from when I took the bar longer ago than I'm comfortable talking about on the record. Essentially, the very simple side of it, and again, legislature counsel could probably provide this more clearly, but the simple part of it is you rent an apartment, there are certain items that come with the apartment depending on the lease, depending on what the landlord has provided, refrigerator, stove, maybe washer, dryer. Those are if they're come with the apartment are generally considered fixtures, and they're part of what you are renting. So in a scenario where this device is plugged in and you've rented the apartment with the device plugged in, arguably, that's a fixture, and the landlord is gonna be responsible for liability arising out of the situation. The flip side scenario is and I think this is part of how these devices are being marketed and it's part of what I believe is the utility of this bill. A tenant comes and has the ability to bring their own portable device and cut back on their electricity cost cut you know, increase the number of the amount of sustainable energy being used, or generated. That would be more akin to me bringing my own maybe it's a space heater into my rental unit. Maybe it's a washing machine into my rental unit. Maybe it's any other device that I, the tenant, bring in and plug in, then the liability would lie with me on that. Of course, there's a whole world as lawyers love to do imagining, okay. But what if it's the wiring in the wall that wasn't sufficient to manage the the plug in device? You know, I think you can have some language, and and I think Virginia's got some language that makes you know, really draws in clearly that, like, you plug this thing in, tenant, it's on you. That's a policy question for you all to consider where the boundaries of that lie. As a former landlord with an old house, I would have wanted to have some great clear understanding of what was getting plugged in and what wasn't. We updated the wiring and have since sold the property. But I just say, like, thinking it through having rented in Vermont and having also become a landlord in Vermont, I think the lease is the really clear piece there. Right? Because then then you're negotiating between the two of us where liability is gonna fall on these things. Landlords could certainly permit it or not, and that would

[Unidentified Committee Member]: be something to consider. It's like, do you wanna adopt that?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: But you can also make it clear in the statute if you really wanna draw in front of her. Again, I think it could get thorny.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Virginia law allows landlords to prohibit these if they have, I think, four or fewer units. Does not allow landlords to prohibit these if they own five or more units. That's another little bit of the picture here. But, you I'm wondering about this, and it's not specifically a an aging question. But, you know, as we think about portable electric balcony, portable solar balcony solar, like a lot of the uses for renters. And if these are to be if the requirement is they'd be on a dedicated circuit and there'd be a unique receptacle and a unique plug, seems that a vanishingly small number of renters will pay to have that all done.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Opining just as me? Yes. Yeah. I I agree.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And so I would And

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: you'll be changing your landlords. Right? And you're investing essentially in the landlords.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Exactly. So, you know, it feels like since the circuit and their seventh will all stay with the property and possibly make it more attractive to tenants who wanna do this, Whether that shouldn't be a landlord expense and, you know, are there any similar analogies where landlords are obligated to meet a tenant request or something like that?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So let me start by saying, I think there are folks at Legal Aid who are excellent on this stuff. Yes. And I would defer to their expertise. Where we engage in landlord tenant tends to be around rental fees and things like that where we've we've been brought in, again, a consumer protection side. Our consumer assistance program, which would take complaints around devices like this is also a great avenue, and that's where we've gotten a lot of our solar complaints. So going again back to it's a bad time of year to be on thin ice.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: But I'm gonna do. I

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: would just say so there's a warranty of habitability, which is sort of, like, the basic standard, right, for what a rental property has to be, and any landlord is required to meet this warranty of habitability. So, again, that tends to be, like, is there hot water, heat, functional utilities, and functional appliances? I think you get into a different realm where and, policy question for you all, but it's a different world when you're sort of saying and I think it could potentially be challenging a tight market to put requirements on landlords to meet tenant requirements. Can I just let it drift to that point? Do you want me That sense. I mean, I I I hear you completely right, Kleppner. I'm I I just would say, like, there's a world Kleppner. Excuse me. And I I I would say there's a it becomes a challenging, you know, if I bring my own VYO device and can then rent the property and tell you, hey. You need to put in $2,000 worth of wiring. Know? Time line is hard to get electrician. Like

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. And it's actually the closest analogy to this would be an EV charger.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right. And that's why I don't think we have a requirement

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Right.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Now. Although it's gonna be probably more of an issue.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Yeah. And and I wonder too, again, question for legal aid, but what about dryer? Right? I need a a two twenty volt plug in for a dryer. I I don't know.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Is that something that I you

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: can require of a tenancy? Thank

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: you.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Not sure I'd stay.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Whole buns are gonna figure out

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: the toast. It's the biggest nerve.

[Representative Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Anything else to share?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Very good.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Think we're good. Thank you.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. For joining us. We can go off live. We have let's just look ahead. Let's see here. We have caucus of the whole at ten. Join assembly lunch or we're I mean, committee is we're done. Committee is back at 03:00 tomorrow, Thursday to talk more about this, we're going talk about the Utah and Virginia legislation with Ledge Council. Should be interesting. Alright, thanks everybody.