Behind the Bill: How Maryland Put Plug-In Solar Inside a Utility Relief and Climate Justice Agenda
By PlugInSolarUS Editorial · Published 2026-07-27 · 28 min read
Del. Lorig Charkoudian and CCAN AF Maryland Director Brittany Baker explain how Maryland combined consumer access, energy affordability, climate justice, and practical implementation.
Editor’s Note: This article is part of PluginSolarUS.com’s “Behind the Bill” series, which explores how different states are approaching plug-in solar legislation, consumer access, safety, and implementation. It is based on interviews with Maryland Del. Lorig Charkoudian and Brittany Baker, Maryland Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and CCAN Action Fund, Maryland legislative materials for H.B. 1532 / Chapter 353, and background research. For a full overview of Maryland’s plug-in solar status, see our Maryland state page.
A small solar idea inside a much larger utility bill
Maryland did not approach plug-in solar as a standalone gadget bill. It placed the idea inside a much larger energy affordability package: H.B. 1532, the Utility RELIEF (Reducing Energy Load Inflation for Everyday Families) Act, later approved by the Governor as Chapter 353.
For Del. Lorig Charkoudian, plug-in solar connected two priorities she had already been working on for years: expanding clean energy and making sure the transition reaches people who have often been left out. “Plug-in solar actually is sort of this perfect marrying of those two really important priorities of mine,” Charkoudian said.
Brittany Baker, Maryland Director for CCAN Action Fund, described the same idea from the advocacy side. CCAN works on climate action, clean energy, building decarbonization, and greenhouse-gas emissions reduction through policy development, legislative testimony, public campaigns, and grassroots organizing. Its theory of change, Baker said, is that ambitious policy requires people power.
Charkoudian brought the plug-in solar concept to CCAN as a people-first way to build equity into Maryland’s clean-energy future. Baker, who previously worked in Charkoudian’s office, said the proposal recognized that clean-energy progress depends not only on infrastructure, but also on residents and ratepayers seeing a place for themselves in the transition.
Why plug-in solar caught Maryland’s attention
Charkoudian does not point to one single moment when plug-in solar first appeared on her radar. Brightsaver helped her understand the policy opportunity. She connected with the Utah lawmaker who had moved one of the first U.S. plug-in solar bills. National media attention then helped turn a technical policy idea into something constituents could immediately understand.
“Plug-in solar kind of had its moment,” Charkoudian said, recalling that after a New York Times article on the category, constituents began sending her the story and asking what Maryland was doing about it. Her answer was simple: “I’m on it.”
Baker said the category was compelling because it could give more people a direct stake in clean energy. “Plug-in solar is incredible for that because you don’t need a good roof. You don’t even need your own house,” she said. A resident only needs an interest in producing some electricity and gaining a measure of energy independence.
That accessibility also makes the idea easy to visualize. Much of energy law involves regional transmission organizations, utility filings, rate cases, and federal regulatory structures that are difficult for everyday residents to follow. Plug-in solar is different. A resident can picture a small solar panel on a balcony, deck, backyard, or patio.
As Charkoudian put it, the idea captures people’s imagination: why should someone not be able to put a small solar panel on a balcony or in a backyard?
What Maryland’s law does
Maryland’s enacted language defines a “portable solar energy generating system” as a movable photovoltaic solar device designed to connect to a building’s electrical system through a standard electrical outlet, primarily intended to offset part of a building’s electricity consumption, certified by Underwriters Laboratories or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory, and limited to supplying no more than 1,200 watts back to the building’s electric system.
The law allows no more than one portable solar energy generating system per electric meter for residential use. It also says these systems are not subject to certain Maryland net energy metering and related requirements, are not eligible for renewable portfolio standard compliance, and may not generate renewable energy credits. A smaller system with a maximum power output to a standard electrical outlet of no more than 391 watts is exempt from product-listing provisions that would require alterations to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panels.
Just as important, Maryland restricts utility gatekeeping. An electric company may not require a customer to obtain the company’s approval before installing or using a qualifying portable solar energy generating system. It also may not require a customer to pay a fee related to the system’s ability to feed electricity back into the electric system, or require additional controls or equipment beyond what is integrated into the device, except as provided in the statute.
Maryland did not eliminate utility awareness altogether. The law requires the customer to notify the electric company once the system is installed, provide certification of the system’s safety features and maximum generating capacity, and pay for installation of an automatic locking disconnect switch if the system requires one.
In plain English: Maryland created a pathway for certified plug-in solar systems up to 1,200 watts, with a simpler 391-watt pathway for systems that do not trigger product-listing requirements requiring building, wiring, or panel alterations, all within a consumer-notification and safety framework.
Notification, not permission
One phrase may define Maryland’s approach more than any other: notification, not permission.
Charkoudian said utilities raised concerns early in the process, and Maryland responded by adding a notification concept. But she emphasized that notice should not be confused with a utility approval process. “You’ll note it’s notification, not permission,” she said.
Baker said the utilities were the principal source of pushback. Advocates originally wanted qualifying systems to be simple for consumers, without major home upgrades, interconnection costs, or a traditional interconnection application. Utilities were concerned about losing visibility and oversight when devices were connected without notice.
The compromise paired utility notification with limits on system size and the number of qualifying systems connected to a residential meter. Baker said that approach helped “thread the needle” with utilities while preserving the basic consumer-access goal.
That distinction remains central during implementation. Traditional rooftop solar often requires interconnection applications, utility review, inspections, approvals, and sometimes long waits. Maryland is trying to avoid turning a small consumer device into a full interconnection project while still giving utilities basic information about installed systems and their safety features.
CCAN plans to follow the process closely. “We have to see what the notification process will be at the utilities and make sure it does feel like purely notification and not approval,” Baker said. Charkoudian likewise expects utilities to need a clear way to receive notice and suggested that the Maryland Public Service Commission may have a role because utility-customer interactions generally fall within PSC oversight.
The access promise — and the equity gaps
The strongest argument for plug-in solar is access. Rooftop solar works well for some households, but many residents are excluded. They may rent, live in a condominium or apartment, lack a suitable roof, or be unable to afford a full solar installation. They may want to participate in clean energy but have no practical place to start.
Baker said advocates used two complementary narratives during the session: lowering electricity bills and expanding equity in the clean-energy movement. The emphasis depended on the audience. For residents focused on affordability, bill savings were the most immediate story. For people already familiar with clean energy, advocates led with access and participation.
She also cautioned against overselling the savings from a small system. A plug-in solar device will not eliminate a household’s electric bill. “Yes, it will lower your bill by a few dollars, but the main purpose is the equity,” Baker said. The larger value is that more residents can own and understand a piece of the clean-energy transition.
Charkoudian hopes climate-justice organizations, counties, municipalities, contractors, and local programs can help turn that access into reality. She described possible models such as bulk purchasing, income-based discounts, partnerships with grassroots groups, or local subsidies funded through county or municipal climate programs.
She also raised an important caveat: master-metered buildings. Many older garden-style apartments and some condominiums do not give each resident an individual electric meter or direct electric bill. A resident might technically be able to use a plug-in solar device, but the financial savings may flow to the building rather than directly to that resident.
Baker identified a second implementation question: landlord and condominium rules. Maryland did not include the same level of tenant-protection language found in Virginia’s law because advocates believed Maryland was generally more receptive to clean energy. But CCAN intends to watch for landlords or condominium associations becoming practical barriers and may revisit protections if residents report problems.
Together, those perspectives sharpen Maryland’s equity test: not only whether a device is legal, but whether renters, apartment residents, and households with high energy burdens can actually obtain one, install it, and receive the benefit.
Why the Utility RELIEF Act was the right home
Plug-in solar began as part of a broader solar reform package Charkoudian was developing with advocates. Baker said that package also sought changes to Maryland’s solar renewable-energy credit system and the use of certain alternative compliance payments. Those broader reforms were not added to the Utility RELIEF Act.
At the same time, high electricity costs dominated the legislative conversation. State leaders assembled a large omnibus energy package — the Utility RELIEF Act — rather than moving every energy proposal separately. Plug-in solar was pulled into that larger package because it was widely viewed as understandable, helpful, and comparatively noncontroversial.
“Everybody was excited,” Baker said of the reaction advocates encountered. She believes that broad appeal helped the plug-in solar provision survive even when other parts of the original solar package did not.
Charkoudian also saw utility relief as an appropriate home. A small plug-in solar device is not a complete solution to rising electricity prices, but it gives consumers another tool. The provision therefore works on several levels at once: emissions reduction, energy affordability, consumer choice, clean-energy access, and greater agency over electricity use.
Safety: trusting standards, not inventing Maryland-only rules
Safety was not ignored. It was central to how Maryland shaped the law.
Charkoudian said the main challenge was technical confusion as national safety requirements and product standards evolved. Maryland had drafted language based on what lawmakers and advocates thought the requirements would look like, then had to adjust as the standards discussion became less simple than expected, including how to distinguish the broader 1,200-watt pathway from the smaller 391-watt exemption.
The final framework therefore has two important size concepts. Systems up to 1,200 watts are allowed if they meet the required safety and certification framework, while systems up to 391 watts have a narrower exemption from product-listing provisions that would otherwise require alterations to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panels.
Charkoudian’s safety philosophy was straightforward: Maryland should not invent its own engineering rules from scratch. Instead, state law should rely on national safety standards and certified products. “We’ll trust the engineers and the national labs,” she said. “So we just referenced that safety standard.”
Baker said the size, safety, and one-system limits also helped make the proposal comfortable for stakeholders. The standards-first posture matters for consumers and retailers because plug-in solar will only become mainstream if buyers can distinguish properly certified products from unsafe or noncompliant ones.
Electricians, utilities, and stakeholder dynamics
Unlike in some states, Charkoudian did not describe major resistance from electricians. She said she works closely with the electricians union and ran the concept by IBEW. The union did not raise major concerns, in part because its Maryland work tends to focus more on utility-scale and community solar than small residential devices.
Baker similarly said utilities, rather than electrical labor, were the main source of resistance. Her lesson for other states is to engage utilities early, be transparent with all stakeholders, and develop language that preserves the consumer benefit while addressing legitimate operational questions.
Utilities were simultaneously focused on larger issues in Maryland’s energy package, including rate-making, multi-year rate plans, transmission oversight, and grid-enhancing technologies. Compared with those disputes, the potential system impact of small plug-in solar devices was relatively modest. That may have helped the provision avoid becoming the central utility fight of the session.
A gateway to energy literacy and public buy-in
Both Charkoudian and Baker emphasized that plug-in solar has value beyond the electricity it produces. It can change how people relate to energy.
Charkoudian described the direct physical connection: people can touch the device and see sunlight becoming power. “There is something about feeling directly connected,” she said, “like touching the thing that is creating your energy.” Even if a system offsets only a small load, the experience can make the energy system feel less distant.
Baker framed that connection as a way to build broader public buy-in. Homeowners, apartment residents, and everyday citizens can see themselves participating in clean energy rather than experiencing the transition only through policy debates or a monthly bill.
She sees plug-in solar as “a tool in the tool belt” — not a substitute for larger investments, but a technology that can help residents become comfortable with distributed energy and understand why other resources, such as transmission connected battery storage, matter.
In that sense, plug-in solar is not only a small device. It is a doorway into energy literacy, public confidence, and participation.
Data centers, storage, and the distributed-energy future
Charkoudian connected plug-in solar to a larger conversation happening in Maryland and across the country: data centers, AI-driven electricity demand, and who pays for new energy infrastructure.
In parallel with the Utility RELIEF Act, she worked on a separate effort to create a pathway for data centers that bring their own 100% clean capacity, potentially through solar, storage, flexible load, or virtual power plants. Plug-in solar by itself is too small to solve the data-center load problem and is not yet configured as a grid-responsive virtual power plant resource in the way storage or flexible load might be.
Baker also warned against either overstating or understating the technology. Its largest near-term contribution, in her view, is equity and public connection. That connection can then make it easier to deploy other clean-energy technologies that have a larger effect on utility costs and power-sector emissions.
Charkoudian sees a possible future in which community-benefit agreements, distributed solar, storage, and local clean-energy investments are linked. A data center, for example, might support distributed solar and storage in the neighborhood where it is located. Plug-in solar could be one small component of that broader distributed-energy package.
What still needs to happen
Maryland has created a legal pathway, but legislation alone does not put systems in people’s homes.
Baker identified commercial availability as the most immediate barrier. Marylanders are already asking where they can buy compliant systems, but familiar retail channels and suppliers are not yet obvious. She does not expect general acceptance of clean energy to be the largest obstacle in Maryland; the larger near-term question is whether residents can find a qualifying product they understand and trust.
Once compliant systems are available, CCAN plans to help residents navigate them. Baker described possible fact sheets, purchasing references, and practical tutorial videos explaining what a system is and how to use it. Stakeholders are already asking for that information.
The utility-notification process also needs clear, simple guidance. Customers, retailers, utilities, and possibly the Public Service Commission need to know who must notify whom, when, and with what documentation. CCAN intends to monitor the process so notice does not become an informal approval requirement.
Local implementation partners can expand access. Charkoudian mentioned Montgomery County and Takoma Park as examples of local governments with climate goals that might use climate investment funds to subsidize access for lower-income residents. Bulk purchasing and partnerships with community organizations could lower costs further.
Finally, Maryland needs to watch who remains excluded. Master-metered buildings may prevent direct bill savings, and landlord or condominium restrictions may emerge after products reach the market. Baker said CCAN will keep its “ears and eyes open” for those obstacles, while Charkoudian emphasized the continuing question of how to bring excluded residents into the policy’s benefits.
A message to Maryland residents
Asked what she would tell a Maryland resident interested in plug-in solar, Charkoudian gave an enthusiastic answer: “Check it out. It’s pretty cool.” She already has rooftop solar but may still buy a plug-in device because she wants to understand the experience firsthand.
Baker would tailor the message to the community. In places facing especially high energy burdens, including Baltimore and the Eastern Shore, she would lead with affordability and energy independence: a small opportunity for residents to take more control of their energy situation. In communities where residents already prioritize climate action, she would emphasize the chance to reduce household emissions and take another practical step toward cleaner energy.
“Right now, I would tell the affordability and the energy-independence story first before I tell the climate story,” Baker said. The messages are not mutually exclusive. Together they capture why Maryland placed plug-in solar inside both a utility-relief and climate-justice agenda.
Maryland’s role in the national plug-in solar movement
Each state that has moved on plug-in solar has taken a slightly different approach. Utah created one of the first narrow legal pathways. Connecticut placed plug-in solar inside a broad renewable-energy package. Colorado pushed into higher system limits and meter-collar provisions. Vermont emphasized consumer simplicity. Virginia included stronger tenant-protection language. Maryland placed plug-in solar inside a utility-relief and climate-justice agenda.
Charkoudian’s legislative perspective and Baker’s advocacy perspective point to the same larger lesson: the policy works best when access, affordability, safety, and implementation are treated as one connected project.
For other states, Baker recommends early utility engagement and transparent stakeholder work. She also cautions that landlord, tenant, condominium, and HOA protections must reflect local law and housing conditions; what seems unnecessary at passage may become important during implementation.
The hard work in Maryland now shifts from legislation to execution: certified products, a simple notification process, consumer guidance, local subsidies, climate-justice outreach, and attention to housing barriers. If those pieces come together, Maryland could show how a small solar device can sit inside a much bigger policy vision: lower bills, cleaner energy, broader participation, and a more distributed energy future.
Source Notes: Primary sources for this article include an interview with Del. Lorig Charkoudian regarding Maryland H.B. 1532 / Utility RELIEF Act and plug-in solar, an interview with Brittany Baker, Maryland Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and CCAN Action Fund, regarding advocacy, equity, stakeholder engagement, and implementation, Maryland General Assembly materials for H.B. 1532 / Chapter 353, and public background on plug-in solar legislation, portable photovoltaic devices, electrical safety standards, and emerging U.S. implementation issues. Direct quotes have been lightly edited for clarity.
Disclaimer: PluginSolarUS.com provides general educational information only. This article is not legal, electrical, engineering, product-safety, installation, or financial advice. Before purchasing or installing any plug-in solar, portable solar, solar-plus-storage, battery, inverter, or related electrical product, consumers should confirm current requirements with applicable state law, local building and electrical authorities, fire officials where relevant, their utility, their landlord or HOA where applicable, and a qualified electrician if needed. Consumers should use only properly certified or listed products that comply with applicable safety standards, electrical codes, manufacturer instructions, and local requirements. Laws, standards, utility rules, product certifications, billing practices, metering requirements, and installation requirements may change over time. Estimated savings, payback periods, and product availability vary by electricity rates, system size, location, usage patterns, product cost, installation requirements, metering configuration, tariffs, incentives, and local rules.