Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You're live. Okay, good morning, Senate Natural Resources and Energy. And we What is today? Today is May 14, I believe. Yeah. 10:22. We are starting this morning looking
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: at a side by side version of S202 that we've gotten back from the house and we've been very much the council to walk us through this. Just as a heads up, we've got proposal of further amendments that I want us to look at. So that's what's coming. Okay, take
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it away. Ellen Jay Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel. Today, under my name, you have four documents related to S202. You have the House passed version, you have a summary, you have a side by side, and you have Senator Watson with the proposal of further amendment. But I think we're going to start with the side by side, showing the differences between the booking passed and what the house passed. And to remind you, this F202 was an act relating to portable solar energy generation devices. The house has renamed that term to plug in portable gaming devices. So the name of the bill will also change. They are requiring that these things be securely installed, so less portable.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, good. Okay. That seems good actually.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the first change in addition to the title is that they struck the word movable. Oh. That's fair. Okay. Also on page one, do you see the The formerly portable. I don't think I
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was portable solar. Okay.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So also on page one, in the definition of these devices, they've added reference that not only should it be shall it comply with UL3700, it shall also be installed and operated in compliance with IEEE fifteen forty seven-twenty 18, a successor standard using default performance and setting profiles consistent with those developments by regional transmission and distribution system operators. This is
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the electrical code, part of
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the national electrical code. So, I think your bill may have included that actually at one point, but been drafted prior to yeah,
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: introduction originally. Yes. I remember talking about this. Should we include it, should we not, so they opted to. Alright. Think we can hear. Actually, we're here, I don't see me to you on this question. Sure. Yeah.
[Unidentified witness (energy policy advocate)]: Generally speaking, is so the Oh, thank you. Record's done that really well for the bird. The question, as I understood, it was generally speaking, is the house version regulations in the house version strong enough that it could discourage adoption more than some group? Our perspective is that many of the house provisions were perhaps redundant. They're incorporating things that are incorporated by reference through 3700, but probably do no harm, and maybe help in sort of adults and suspenders kind of way. As you saw from us in a letter yesterday, the one provision in the plug and solar part of 02/2002 that we have a concern about in terms of really potentially slowing down adoption as the what I would recommend as the landlord.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: The landlord's gonna portion. We'll talk
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: about it. Okay. Okay. Right. Okay. So
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the next section is the new edition of two fifty six, which is the statute on these devices. So again, it to plug in photovoltaic device. And they also added that they need to have a maximum combined inverter capacity of not more than 1,200 watts. They also added a customer shall ensure the device is temporarily but securely attached to the ground or to the structure. There was a real emphasis on safety. Again, they just changed the name, but at the top of the of the next page, I'll just clarify about these devices that they comply with subsection A shall not require a 2048 permit or an interconnection agreement and shall not otherwise be subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission. So just to clarify, really clarifying. And then the name change, and then in Subdivision C2, they've added that a utility cannot require them to pay any fee or charge related to the installation of the device.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But does that imply that they could charge a fee for other fees related to the device? Potentially, yes. It's interesting. I guess I don't That does leave open some possibilities. I'm not worried. Don't know, how do you feel about that, Senator? I just, I don't know what the, I don't know what they might charge, but I mean, the whole point of this originally was that we were trying to make this as easy as possible, it seems to have been made harder and maybe more expensive. So I wouldn't want them to charge a fee, you know, like the portable solar fee on your electric bill or something. I don't know what
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it would be, but I don't But let's if we flag and come back to it.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, we can get one of the electric company folks in.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They've also added the new subsection D. Nothing in this section shall prevent an electric distribution company from recovering costs associated with the overloading of the service provided due to the presence of a plug in coil. Well, there, that actually answers Scott's question. They could have charged an overloading fee. Subsection E has the name change again, and then the last sentence that goes on to the next page is that generation exported to the grid by a plug in total tank shall not be compensated by utility. Yours read slightly different, which is excess generation fed back into the grid shall not be compensated. I think there was a construction about whether something was excess or not. Okay.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Feel like this is
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: clarifying. Yeah. Subsection F is the same about following the fire codes in a public building. And then subsection G, which has already been mentioned, is new. And this is about landlord tenants. Landlords and tenants. So the house's origin reads, subsection G, no tenant shall install a plumbing total and take advice without the landlord's permission. A tenant shall provide at least ten days notice to the landlord of the tenants. Intends to install a plumbing, home and tank device in compliance with Section A of the section of the building. The landlord shall respond within ten days with any reasonable restrictions on the installation of the device or may deny the search.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, I've got some alternate language to this that I'd like to chat about. I'm wondering if, Would you like to look at the alternative language now? Or we could go finish going through the bill and come back to the Why don't we finish going through the bill? It's not much Yeah.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good, let's keep going. Yeah, so then the section on useful bylaws and the section on de restrictions, all that is changing is the name of these devices. And then the last change, which is on the last page of the side by side, is that they also added to this bill what was H600 in the house, and I think you do have an S version. But this is about updating the dates in the client's efficiency standards.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: S-one 191.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: S-one 190 So Vermont has an appliance efficiency standard block. Many of the appliances on the list are directly tied to the federal standard. And so while the federal standard is still in place, the state is preempted from adopting a different standard. However, there are also a couple of products on our list that are not on the federal list, so we do have appliance sufficiency for a set number of appliances that are not covered by the federal list. But on the list of things that are in the appliance efficiency standards, number six on the list refers to any of the products that are listed in tenancy of R4030 and 4,031, which is the federal regulation on appliance efficiency, but it's tied to those provisions as they existed on January 1937. The proposal in the house is to update that to 01/19/2025 to reflect additional changes that were made at the national level in the last administration.
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: Yes, question. Just curious if this builds their food appliances, it means it's a lot of appliance of sort, that deals with energy conservation. That's true. It's gonna be within the park. So Mhmm.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, I I think it's fair. I think they were interested in this language, and this is Okay. What they attached it to. Grateful. And as I understand, it was not
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: generally controversial or comfort. So I don't believe Go ahead.
[Unidentified witness (energy policy advocate)]: Maybe nobody challenged his Tremaine's
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, right.
[Unidentified witness (energy policy advocate)]: And that was yours.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. But it's the search. Okay, and then for this language, I am interested in adding one piece to this because one of the types of appliances, I guess we'd call it, that is not covered by this is electric motors, particularly that are standalone, that are not incorporated into some other clients already that is covered. So I'm looking to add motors specifically to this. Again, the situation there was little bit think you have understand it because roles for voters started under the Biden administration and then they, as I understand it, would have got into effect under the Trump administration, but they would never publish. And so this just helps clarify, again, status quo or find sufficiency matters. At least that's the language that I'm hoping to. And do have a letter of support from ABB, which is a major producer of electric motors. That's a preview of what's coming. Any questions about what we're looking at here?
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: Yes. Pat's thoughts. The landlord's headed?
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think we'll have a draft. Yes, so I think we should, we could go to that. Yes. As to further proposal of amendments, it's draft 2.1, dated 5.13. It's currently a further proposal amendment from Senator Watson because this bill is coming back and it will be referred to this committee unless you ask for
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: it to be, but you
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can say your floor amendment this way. So yes, this proposal of amendment has two issues in it. It has the landlord tenant language, and then it also has the appliance deficiency related to motors in the second instance. Draft 1.2, the first instance of amendment amending 30 S. A. 56, subsection G. So the first two sentences are what's already in the House version. A tenant shall provide at least ten days notice to the landlord of the tenant's intent to install a plug and mobile tape device in compliance with subsection A of the section in the building. The landlord shall respond within ten days of any reasonable restrictions on the installation device, including requiring the tenant to pay for any required electrical work and hiring a licensed
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: electrician to do the work.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the landlord does not respond within ten days, the tenant may receive an installation. A tenant shall not perform or hire someone to perform electrical work on the premises for the installation of a plug and photovoltaic device without the landlord's permission. A landlord should not be compelled to perform or pay for electrical work on the premises to allow installation of the flooding well obtained advice.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the thought here is, we get that the landlord owns the building, they own the flyer as their domain. If there is a need to rewire to make this possible, you really can only do that with the landlord's permission, but wanted keep the possibility open that future technology may allow for no rewiring necessary, that that's possible. So that would still be possible under this language that should the technology advance and you can just plug it
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in that the landlord can't collect to say that. So
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that is the wiring. It says license. License, it's in the draft. Yeah.
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: Yeah. So I'm just trying
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: to find myself, I guess,
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: getting concerned about this. My understanding was that if the device that was sold had the requirements in the first patient bill, you could plug it in. Right. So Properly plugged is safe or it's not. No. And if it is, then we don't wanna load up the same Yeah. Forward. But if it's not, that's the reflection.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it sounds like as a part of UL 3,700 that it may require a dedicated circuit. Okay. And that's where some of the wiring comes in. It may even come with its own plug, so you might have to install a plug, which is where the wiring comes in.
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: That's all went to the house because it was dependent upon the meeting. Correct. Okay,
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: great.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any other thoughts or questions about this part? It's okay. Okay. Pretty. Okay, 90. So moving on, you want to read us through? So the
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: second amendment is amending that applying deficiency language. And so as I just mentioned, this is the list in statute of the items that are on the Vermont Appliance Deficiency List. So number two is that they have to adopt the federal standards as under 10 CFR four thousand thirty and four thousand thirty one as those provisions existed on January 15 to February 2020 on page two, add a new language that says, and amended in a final rule entitled Energy Conservation Programs, Energy Conservation Standards for Expanded Scope Electric Motors signed on 01/08/2025, excluding any motor incorporated into the product, which the Federal Conservation Standard applies under 10 CFR forty third and forty third for the law.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So there's been some complicated legal
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: back and forth on the electric motor rule. And so this is trying to clearly incorporate it by including it as the final rule signed on January 2025.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the exclusion, what does the exclusion mean? So excluding any So some of
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the other voters are already covered under 04/4031?
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, the other parts of it. Okay.
[Unidentified committee member (Senator)]: And
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you have We have a letter on our website. I think I forwarded it to Megan when I'm trying to get that. ABD. Sorry, it's under today, you said? It should be. So, far away down, I remember the achievement I've embedded.
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, really? It's open for me.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: They're using this acronym ESEMs, which stands for
[Unidentified witness (energy policy advocate)]: Expanded scope electric meters, which are the specific motors that hadn't been previously
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: covered that are covered. Which is explicitly, it's like in the electric vehicle. Yes. Yes. Expanded scope electric motors. So they do say in here, ABB would support including vision in state backstop language that adopts the SEM levels that were published with an exception to applied to end products already covered by federal efficiency standards, which are ones that are incorporated into the product. Getting some knots. Seems pretty good. Doing okay? Yes. Great. Super. Thank you. So what is the proper procedure here?
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could straw hold, but you're offering the amendment yourself. So you could straw hold, if the bill is not formally pointing back to the Senate, ignites stuff.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well then let's take a straw hold. I think that is the plan. We could all be done. We all are okay with these amendments. Okay, we're getting into the yes over here. Send it back. Okay, so let's Oh, in that case, it's from all
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of us. That's helpful. Thank you. Particularly helpful. All right, that's great.
[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let's move on to Actually, let's take a two
[Ellen J. Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: minute