Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, April 2, and we are here for not the final, but our first attempt to mark up S202 and start trying to still all the testimony we've heard into some actual revisions to the language. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. We have both from Saint John's Ferry,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Richard Bailey, one mile two.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's a greatful South of Caledonia too. Christopher Howland, Rutland Park.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, chief of thirteen, Burlington.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham team.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And joining us in the room, Andrea Cohen from Long Electric Cooperative.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That looks okay for you. Great,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: so Isabel Wasser and Jennings for that going. Super. Okay, so we had an assignment, which was to read all of the testimony and try to pull together all of the suggestions that come in from various sources. And I took a pretty good crack at that. But mine is sort of in order of testimony and not in peg to the bill language. And I think, Brett Campbell, it goes in order of the bill language, which is probably more helpful. So, Scott, do you want should we start as a

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: why

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: don't we start at the top, and I will kinda go through my notes as we go along in order, but maybe, Scott, you could

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Take it in order.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Well, the first note that I had was so page one, line 11, it hits or line 10 starts. This device, portable solar generation device, is designed to be connected to a building electrical system via an electrical cord plugged into a receptacle. And it occurred to me that you were talking about a specialized receptacle receptacle of some on a dedicated circuit. And it's I think UL

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 3,700 called for a dedicated circuit. But didn't we ask for a copy of of standard from

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: DOL people? I thought we hey. When we hit I I went looking for it, and it's $250 or something to get to get it probably. I wonder who could get a get a copy from them so they know what it says, or it's a sum of what it says.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have Alex, can you please print a clean copy of two zero two for me? I I have bits and bobs that it's not

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So, anyway, that's if if it does require a dedicated circuit circuit, it seems like specialized or something for me too, Alex. Mhmm. So it'd be be a good thing as well so that we're not flexi. It's not yeah. It's not the density the energy. Remember, we're not plugging the PV, solar PV, into something. Either with nothing circuits, it shouldn't be plugged into. So that was that was my first edit. You wanna talk about these one by one?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. One by one. And what I wanna do is flag areas. Because I was I was reading the white paper, and testimony from UL. And also, we had a helpful document from Bright Saver, safety of plug in solar. So what I wanna make sure that we're we're carefully doing is not adding language that is already included

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In 3700.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In 3700.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And so that I think that would be our first question then is I'm gonna jot this down for you. And this is receptacle. So our questions about UL 3,700 are gonna be What

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: exactly does it say? What are the works what are the requirements? Yeah. I and I as I understand it, I dedicate the circuit to one of the departments.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't we flag the areas in the bill as we go through that we wanna be sure are covered by 3,700? And then we can send a request list to UL. Yeah. And say, is this included?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And ask if they would cause an apartment to take a copy of it there. Okay. Or something.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll check out. Yeah. So legislative council. Yep. Hello. 202. Here we are. Mhmm. Neither Virginia nor Utah use that reference. They just say standard electrical outlet. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I noticed that, which is why it seems important just to specify if if that's what we're

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And I did not hear I didn't hear any of your testimony, actually. I but I think there was testimony in the senate that there are proposals to exempt some the the smaller units from that requirement.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm not sure we're down with that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm not sure we're down. Yes. Because it's it sounds like well, first of all, the PV panel is generating electricity whenever they light on it. And and that seems like a concern. I plug it into a branch circuit. There is some risk of overcurrent happening. So along those lines, I identified must be plugged into a circuit designed for and wired for back feed of electricity. Which which also encompasses the bidirectional GSC. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And my concern is just the overcurrent into the building circuit that is he designed to accept it. That's my biggest concern with that. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So Yeah. In the BriteSaber testimony that we took, it's the safety plug in solar two page or four page or whatever from BriteSaber. At the top of page two and I think we're gonna wanna confirm this with you all directly and not take, like, you know, not take anybody's word for it. But it says that 3,700 includes a suite of rigorous requirements and tests to demonstrate the product will not pose risks associated with electrical shock, fire, structural, and other hazards, it includes requirements for component parts to meet other product safety standards such as that inverters meet UL seventeen forty one, which would prevent electricity from back feeding to the grid during a power outage. So I'm gonna wanna hear that directly from UL.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's referring to backpeaving into the grid, not necessarily the overcurrent that they were starting in the development.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. But we'll send it. Would you reference the standard? Well, we're gonna just reference the standard. What we wanna make sure is that the standard explicitly covers. So the bill already just mentions the standard. Right. And I think what we're trying to we're trying to take the next step and make sure that as written, the standard already covers every concern we've heard about in testimony.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Would meeting the NEC code solve that issue? Well, there were a few other references on line 14 of the bill. It says complies with UL 3,700, and and I added to that language, some of which was requested by ISO. So applies with with with UL, and I I inserted UL Solutions standard UL 3,700 and UL seventeen forty one. I trauma fifteen forty seven. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Comma, IEE or Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engine Standard, IEEE fifteen forty seven, comma, that's all ISO New Brunswick's request. And then we have also requested or equivalent national attempt to understand this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That was

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's in Virginia, isn't it?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's in Virginia. The the weird thing about not weird. The thing about the I the ISO request is that they they're requesting compliance with seventeen forty one. And then I saw other elsewhere in the testimony that 3,700 includes

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Seventeen forty one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Seventeen forty one. So that's another question I think we're gonna have for you, Al. Yep. So my I think maybe maybe you guys who understand, like, wiring and and these technical issues better than I do can help us get together a question list for you, Al. Does 3,700 include?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So 3,700 is just the testing of the unit itself.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 37 no. 3700 yeah. Is the certification of the unit.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The testing. There's no certification as a BF. There are no

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: products yet certified. Right. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's just a testing case.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we're gonna say, I think we're gonna say that they have to be certified.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Hope it, yes. Yeah. Tested and certified.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because it says right now in the bill, complies with UL 3,700 for an equivalent certification. It doesn't say testing. It says certification.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So in my mind, I agree that's important. So I think we wanna make sure that that's what we need.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then what all does that cover? So I you know, maybe this maybe the three of us can put our heads together and get a stab at, like, a request list.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So the white paper addresses what e l 3,700 is. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I had a hard time with deep comprehension on the white paper. Well, and it I read it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It it includes what what what they're talking about putting it at the time, but we don't know what it probably excludes. And and that we that what I got out of it was this is this is what was what should be in it and what we plan to put in or something like that. But it wasn't it wasn't the final standard.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think the white paper preceded the standards. Yeah. We just don't have the standards.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay. I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: was misinterpreting that then.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, Well, I Maybe or or maybe you're right. You're right. Okay. So here's what I here's what I'm gonna suggest. I think we're gonna have multiple questions about UL 3,700 and does our bill include all of these important things. So I think that's a a request letter that we'll send develop and send to UL and save. They might I think they need to come back in. Actually, don't think written testimony. I think we need to ask some more questions. But we can give them you you can give them a question list. You'd be like, we want live testimony. Okay. Rapel, was your finger

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. It was. 1741. The Wait. You're on. Who? 1741 was U u U l. U l. Oh, u l 1741. Excuse me. Yeah. So I think the 1741 is provision of the inverter that converts the DC to the AC somewhere located on the panel. The the question is that's the part that limits the backflow or the flow out of the plug from the solar panels that it that it, in some way, cuts it off with some electronics. So there's no AC flow to the wire that goes from the panels toward the AC of the house. Okay. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: maybe

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And I'm sorry. There's also this concern about the fact that the plug stays charged even when it's unplugged. Right. Right? There's a touch shock hazard there.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right. That's the and and that's when UL spoke to us, they talked about a proprietary plug that has been bended. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I mean

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But I've been I've

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: been thinking of solutions that they would like Yeah. Testified of. Oh, that's You know, they used to have what they call a big pick. You know? Yeah. So if you had a pigtail with a switch on it, so it had two male plugs on either end with a switch in the center. So we plug it in. The switch is off. The other male plug doesn't get energized and vice versa. Simple as that, and maybe you'll the push button too.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, anyway, this is what we have to ask. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Anyway So maybe so there were a bunch of other suggestions that don't have to do with UL's 3,700 to the language, so maybe we could go through those. Those are easier. Okay. Okay. I've got from we have a couple of suggestions from the PUC.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: On I guess, we're going down there. Bill, the next one I had was whether we wanna specify on line 21, the bottom page response, maximum combined capacity. Do we wanna specify that it's converted capacity? Even though I think everybody assumed that for

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What would that language replace? What would that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just between there's a combined between combined capacity, it's just a quick insert for a converter. So that's the inverter capacity and not panel capacity. Okay. In

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: in general, you put up more

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: panel capacity. But the But the inverter capacity is what connects to the bridge. That's that's the output from the panel. Right. So it's limited by the inverter.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So the inverter gets limited. So it doesn't matter how many panels you put in the string or what the capacity is that That's why I understand you. Or Right. Wow. Yeah. And then what's AC or what's AC? Well, if it's if

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we're talking about inverter, it it seems like

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: it sounds clear that it's AC coming out of the inverter. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So we add the word inverter at the bottom in line 21. We've got suggestions under section two. Yep. So subsection b. So now I'm on page two line starting at line five.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This I think this is the PUC's request or somebody else's. It's fine with me. Yeah. It would read the requirements of section two forty eight of this chapter, comma, strike the oar, be required to obtain an interconnection agreement with an electric distribution company, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the PUC.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That was wax. That was wax. Yeah. I think we have to have a b in there because it's a pizza warehouse.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. Or otherwise be subject to the jurisdiction of the PUC.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just a little bit more requested clarity from WECC. Oh, that's fine by me. Is that fine with everybody else? Uh-huh. So or or otherwise be subject to the jurisdiction of the PUC. In subsection c, we have some requests from Green Mountain Power in number two. Line 11 is where I'm at now. Pay any fee or charge related to the installation of the device. Clarity. There related to the installation of the device. And then there I'm not looking at because I'm looking at my notes. If anybody objects to any of this, flag it for me. Okay? Because I'm not looking down. And then requesting a new sub subsection or whatever these are for. And I'll just read it out loud. Nothing in this section shall prevent a distribution utility from recovering costs associated with the overloading of the service provided due to the presence of a portable solar energy generation device. And I think now that I think about it, this was combined suggested language from GMP and FAC. Both of these things. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: would any of the language from ISO New England fit into this as well?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: ISO stuff comes down farther. Down farther? Okay. I think. Yeah. Yeah. Good.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I can get there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I need to the ISO. Yes. I know I'm not as chronological as everybody.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Have one other thing in this section. I'm

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that okay if if that's okay with everybody? That's good. Yeah. So it it can't go

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: under c grammatically, so it could be interest obstruction itself. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I see. Okay. So it goes c one two three, and then there would be a new would that be a a d a new d? Okay. So, Allen, do you want me to just do I have that. Do you want me to just forward that to you as a word document? Okay. And then

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I have something in place. It'll somewhere.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm wondering about I was noticing that the Virginia law, which, by the way, after I sent it to everybody, I said it was in our list of documents. So sorry.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Would be the.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In the Virginia law, there's a reference to location of the portable panels being in compliance with zoning, regulation, etcetera, And I remember also seeing something about I think it was in Essex comments, but I don't remember exactly. Something about basically secure mounting in case of wind. And so I've worried about so if I when I well, a customer installing a portable solar device shall ensure the device is temporarily but securely attached to the ground or a passenger in a noppable building component, something like that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's fine. I mean, we didn't hear about we did hear about wind.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So it doesn't blow right off. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So securing it. Is that language you I I can send that to to Ellen. Maybe we'll compile everything into the document.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think I'll send it to you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So we'll we'll try to put together one document for Ellen. Okay. Then I am now on sub I'm moving down. I'm now on subsection d, which it sounds like will now become e. And we had a request to for more clear language on excess generation fed back into the grid.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: PUC so that's line 16. The PUC requested that we instead say generation exported to the grid by a portable solar energy generation device shall not be compensated.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So that is GMP Beck and PUC in there. And then I wanna talk about this one. Weck suggested that we add or requested that we add an electric distribution company is not liable for any damage or injuries caused by a portable solar generation device. I wanted to talk about that with everybody because, WECC wants that, but GMP was concerned that that would unnecessarily muddy the waters because they think the law is already clear that they're not liable. And I feel like our conversation with the e is that not right?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Oh, I think neither of them might be able to ask for clarification.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For the record, Andrea calling from. I think that language is no longer necessary because the disease has established. I think we could hang on. Get it. Great. Not needed.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So we're liable for our blenders if we suggest they're not liable for portable solar.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. That's a whole new packet of stuff that's in there now. Okay. Now let's talk about ISO. Trying to so ISO requests compliance with UL seventeen forty one or its successor requirements. That we've already talked about that as a question for UL because we do have written testimony somewhere that 3,700 already includes seventeen forty one. So we need to clarify that. And then the thing that I'm not clear on that we wanna hear from you all is what about IEEE fifteen forty seven, which ISA requested. What about the National Electric Code, which we heard about for in other testimony? And then I feel like there's even a third thing. So I'm gonna leave this letter out to make sure that we know that 3,700 either includes everything we're looking for or we need to add some specific things to our bill. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: on ISO's letter

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do we feel that there's going to be enough uptake to to cause the issue that they point out in their letter?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. But I'm feeling like a why not? Not immediately. But, I mean, they're definitely I mean, they're thinking about New England.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So So if we're going to do this, we should be looking ahead and figure out language that's appropriate in I this

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think so. I mean, just because we're not there yet, I I would hate to kinda overrule ISO and be like, oh, we don't need to worry about this now. So I'd like to accommodate their request. I just think that the stuff may or may not be already in there, especially seventeen forty one. I think 70 seventeen forty one is already included, but we should be sure. And I don't even know what seventeen forty one is. But we'll find out.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They're actually in their letter. They actually state that they maintain the standards necessary for that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It'll be good to get you all back in one more time, and I think with stuff in writing that we can, like, look back to later and be like, include it. Include it. Okay. So okay. So I'm trying to do the technical stuff, and then we need to talk about a lot of the things that Scott raised with Virginia. We need to talk about. So we have done we have done GMP. We've done VAC. We've done WAC. We've done PUC. And we've got a lot of questions for you all. So oh, and another thing I wanna say is the international brotherhood. So everybody wanted to make sure we were complying with 3700. So we heard that loud and clear. That's in there. We'll make sure that's all in there. The brotherhood also mentioned this question of seventeen forty one and I triple e fifteen forty seven. Okay. This is coming back to me now. Those are standards that apply to rooftop and larger solar arrays, and isolates wanting consistency there. That is I have to return to that with you, Al. And then another one more little technical thing before we talk about in Virginia zoning and landlords, which in my mind is a different about it, is craft strong. Recommended that we raise the ceiling on the watts. I don't I don't think we should do that. So unless anybody wants to argue for that. And then one thing they said was and this is an Ellen question. Defining these as portable in statute could exclude the the apple the applicability of future tax credits. Anybody have any thoughts on that? I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. Say it again.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Craft Strong, which was a random written testimony that we got. They're a maker. A maker of. Said, oh, it should be a higher watts. I didn't think that was probably of interest to any of us. But they also said, defining these units as portable in statutes would exclude the use of future tax federal tax credits.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Wouldn't we want federal tax credits even on larger arrays rather than portable devices. One would think, but That's just my thought.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I really have a thought on this.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Can't why we might want it at the cross level, but then probably go back to the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That could be future.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Actually, that that And I'm

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: sure we're gonna be worried about federal tax rate.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I guess, answering just a while. That reminds me, of course, that I had You know, we cut off. Our our bill refers to all these things as a solar generation. But it seems like the standard elsewhere we've seen is plug in PV, PIPV. What is what's the generic term for this that we should use?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, if we change it to plug in PV, that does address the crafts room concern. Yeah. And maybe it brings it into line with its Virginia calls it. I think we're I think we're trying to key off Virginia. Right? It was Also, I think how they referred to it. PPIV? I think. Is it possible, Ellen, to change it to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Virginia calls it small portable solar generation device. Yeah. Oh. Movable phototoproteic generation device. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: don't know. Maybe we should maybe we should use whatever term to do this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the in the thing. They call them PIPV, plug in photovoltaic technology. Ellen, is there any any reason we couldn't just switch to calling up what you all calls it? They call it plug in photovoltaic PIPV.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: You can define it however you want. I guess I'd also wanna know if you're also then changing the definition to move to get rid of the word movable.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What would be the upside and downside of that? And it doesn't could

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: be could be defined as as as we as both saying the same thing. Also, perhaps there's. I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: think the potential downside to defining it as portable, which comes in mind immediately is, you know, if someone builds a balcony and mounts these in a more permanent way, still designed to plug into an outdoor outlet.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. You mean are they gonna say they don't have to comply?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Do we wanna exclude those? And I don't think we do.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. And

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think that's what we're talking

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: about. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't so I think we're talking about the same thing. I don't wanna give them an out, that owner, saying, like, well, this isn't portable, so we don't have to comply with 3,700. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So if we take out portable, does that change how they can be looked at as far as that metering? Because we're taking out portable or a fixed unit.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think everything would still apply. I think we're just changing instead of calling them, we're not changing anything about the bill and what they'd be, all the parameters that would be in place. We're just calling them. Instead of calling them portable solar energy devices, we're calling them plug in photovoltaic technology. Which Aligns it with UL.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Right. I mean, we don't want these to qualify for net metering. So the question is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the bill would still say they don't qualify for net metering. Yeah. Nothing about that

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: would change. The stuff that does qualify for net metering really in no way can be considered plug ins. So I think it's still keep the line where we want us to be done. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't see a downside unless I'm missing something that Ellen would see. Mhmm.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I don't love the word technology, but because it we you are talking about a device devices, but

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well Could we call it a Plug in photovoltaic device? Okay. And then we've addressed the future nonexistent tax credits, and we're calling it the same thing as you all calls it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So the word purple, but

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: it meant that it went with the tenant, with the life of the tenant, not

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the portable, like, portable radio that goes for Bramieville. I mean, it meant it could, but a landlord could also choose to plug these into a balcony and just have it as a benefit for their tenant. Oh, not that. No. It's just the device doesn't have to go through a tenant. No. And Virginia had the

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: couldn't be included in master meter,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: apartment circuit, dwellings where So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: it's all divided up. Where where it isn't where

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: where the bill gets divided,

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: but the system is one. The system. There's there's one master meter. Right. And and know something here that's what it is.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Experienced when I lived in Virginia. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: let's talk about some of the stuff that's in Virginia that's not in our bill. Virginia specifically addresses multifamily apartment buildings. There's language in there talking about our our bill says one per meter. And Virginia specifically addresses how these things could be used in multifamily apartment buildings, one per unit. They talk about landlord permission, which I I think we really need to address. And we have we've invited the landlords to come in. Right, Alex?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I have. Yeah. Haven't heard back.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, that's gonna be something we need to I think we need to look at the Virginia bill. Figure out what they're doing about multi family apartment buildings. Because right now, as it as it's written on, I think we the bill addresses, obviously, single family residential, and it also addresses, like, condos and co ops? Yes. And so it feel so there's a hole in there about multifamily apartment buildings that we need to plug in somehow.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Did we not talk about

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: or is that the Virginia bill? Four units are fewer. You've got some additional. Five and above. You just need to notify the Virginia building.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think that's Virginia. Right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And Virginia is is it goes to four rooms along the. The only one They're going to shepherd the tenant from the.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So boy. Sorry. I could Four

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: rental dwelling units are more. They cannot put if it's installing that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. I wonder what that means for a three unit.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right? Do you need

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the landlord's permission to live in a rental unit with the landlord only have three 2.1 rental units? You need their permission. But flood bank did not need permission.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So to me, it feels important to get clear language about rental buildings in this no matter the number of units, like, where where permission might be required, where permission might not be required, but you would have to notify. So it could be very you'd have to notify the landlord. And I don't know if there's other considerations for, like, a rental building.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So the only other thought I had was to make it not just legally possible, but actually possible for renters to take advantage of these benefits. It seems very unlikely that a renter is gonna pay to have the electric fixed system

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: now in large building

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: upgraded to create a dedicated circuit and a unique receptacle and all that. And on one hand, we could do you know, there's a spectrum of options, although it's not clear what they all are. And there's one that's do nothing, in which case very few renters will ever take these out. There's some people who plan to be in their apartment twenty years who might do it. But and on the other hand, the at the far other end of the spectrum that's requiring landlords at a tenant's request to put in a circuit and a receptance. And that's an upgrade that would stay with the property and presumably benefit the landlord going forward. But let's say it's the far end. Uh-huh.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I can't see requiring a landlord to pay. So, think to me, I'm more interested in where a landlord would have to be notified and or approved. And if the tenant wants to pay for it, they can do it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Not not unreasonable. It does mean that almost no tenants in Vermont will use this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It does, but somebody has to pay for the installation, and it's it can't be on the handbook.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I don't think they can

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: put that on there too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, you know, I mean, I think I think what we have to remember is that this sort of forward looking bill that's trying to get the structure in place and then hopefully as these things become more widely available and cheaper, it will be less of a deal. And more people, there will be more, but that's like a, we put the regulatory framework in place and then let the market, the market's going to do its thing. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: if we were to look at the wattage again, because the lower wattage, which was talked about, negates, if I'm not mistaken, mistaken, the need for rewiring.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, true.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That that was suggested, and that's in the Virginia bill. It is.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The $393.91.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. But I don't think we heard a lot of enthusiasm that from UL or the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's still a possibility of. Yeah. It may it may reduce the possibility that there's still some possibility. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Maybe we have the landlord that does split the cost of rewiring the apartment.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I Mhmm. Can't

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: have loan both. I mean, the the benefit stayed with the landlord, but makes it the tenants doesn't get it for free. Has, you know, has to really wanted enough to pay part of it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then when their lease is up, they take the unit? I I just can't I can't see requiring the landlord just

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: The the wiring, the circuit, the new circuit I know. And the receptacle. Not not the.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. But the next tenant might not want that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Right. But that's fine. I mean, you have a dryer outlet in your apartment. You don't have a dryer. Doesn't body that outlet's sitting there. Right? We don't wanna pay for landlords. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I see that. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Pull up to the landlord.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm not As the bill stands, basically, no one's gonna adopt this in Vermont. Okay. Let's I mean, let's just put that on the table. This is right. So we just need to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But they could. But they could. And they could do it safely. Right. You know?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Hypothetically, two years, they could. I know the devices that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: supply, you know, are certified for this level. Thank you. So this bill is gonna need to be revisited five or ten years from these devices.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I mean, it's changed. If there is not a way for tenants to do this safely, then tenants shouldn't do it. Right? Like, it has to be safety. We have to guarantee the safety of everybody. It's our top obligation here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we've got we we'll have the landlords come in. So why don't we flag this as TBD? We gotta we gotta figure out some language around rentals. Virginia also had specific language saying meets the most recent version of the national electrical code. So that's a question we have about UL and whether we need to add that specific language or whether that's already covered. Then they had two things that Scott already raised that we might wanna consider that you can't we already have in our bill, Ellen, that you can't, like, zone these out. Right? Correct. But Virginia said but it has to comply with any zoning, like, or setback provisions. And that means I don't see why we wouldn't put that in unless Ellen has I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: can't I would I was trying to imagine any restrictions, zoning restrictions or setback provisions that could be triggered by a borderless office device, and I can't think of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Too close to the road? Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Downtown Manchester, Texas, the historic Manchester and Woodstock, you can.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. They prohibited from Closed lines?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, I don't know about closed lines, but But you got that was the Some area of your color of paint you could use or Yeah. Well,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: they also had in Virginia complies with historic architectural preservation and portal protection. Yeah. Yeah. So I I don't have a problem with adding those two things. Height setback and then historic architectural preservation corridor or whatever would be the things you don't wanna and we talked about this with the what what was that? 15 is the new 25 or whatever that whatever that bill was. You wanna make sure you don't get right up against the road. I suppose I just I don't see the harm in putting it in there, I guess. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I guess

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you should have right up your heart and street if you're on in town. Yeah. Yeah. Like I said. So I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but on page three of the bill, we start talking about root canal.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And I'm a little conflicted with that for the simple reason that if we're not requiring notification of these, we're allowing someone to go and just drill holes in the roof.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: What line are you on, Michael?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Well, on line six through 10.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's existing statute about putting on rooftop solar.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Right. On your house. In the case of these, if we're not requiring notification to landlord. But we are. Aren't we?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We are.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Can can they tell them they cannot mount on the roof and drill holes on the roof to mount them? I mean, that's to me, that's something worth talking about because that's you know, it's not done correctly. There's a problem there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I think on page three, we're in the section of statute that talks about municipal bylaws. So we're we're saying that a town bylaw can't you can't adopt a bylaw saying that you can't have one of these.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's what I mean. You're regulating that these can go on a roof. And are we saying the landlord can limit where it's installed or not? I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think we're can you help me out here, Ellen? We're talking about municipal bylaws here.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So municipal bylaws, we can't regulate that. It's not talking about it. The landlord has the authority to deny the device from being installed.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we'll insert landlord landlord language elsewhere saying that's very specific to what you can or can't do in an apartment building. Okay. And now I think we've moved to the, like, select board level. Saying, like, the select board can't adopt a bylaw saying you can't have these in our town. Is that right, Allent? Yes. Yes. Sure. Okay. So those are my notes. I so my notes incorporated, and I know Scott's too, Green Mountain Power, Beck, WAC, ISO, PUC, Bright Saver, Craftsman, the international brotherhood, the firefighters the department, and did not fully wrap my head around UL 3,700, which I think is key to the final changes here. Did anybody else have anything else? So we've got some changes now, and then I think our next step is a a letter to UL requesting written and in person testimony on the details of what's covered and not covered. And I could pull together from there all the, you know, like, does it include this? Does it include that? You know, and make a little bulleted list, and then have some of our more technical people on the committee look that over and make sure I didn't miss anything.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's time to make any. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Does that sound like we're good? Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Because you have I thought one of the utilities watered in the notification. No. They did not read that correctly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't want notification. They don't want. Yeah. One didn't mice. They weren't And then UL. I think that's I think that's our final testing. Yeah. The notification thing, Rich, that was actually me. Because the original the house companion bill that I had you know, that Ellen drafted for me, like, in December had the utilities note being notified. And so I got that stuck in my head as important. And then the senate took it out, and I was for a while stuck on why the utility should be notified until I heard from all the utilities that they very profoundly did not wanna be notified.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Every aide. Every aide.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we've we've dropped that one. Alright. Is everybody good, Ellen? So we owe you a compiled summary, and then letter off to you, Al, and we'll see if we can get final testimony scheduled next week. Because I am trying to in case you can't tell, I am trying to kinda clear our decks so that when bills start to come back from the senate, we're ready. Alright. Why don't we take a five minute break? And Ellen, thanks so much for being

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: here.