This post summarizes an article co-authored by Jigar Shah and CraftStrom CEO Stephan Scherer. Read the full piece on LinkedIn here.
Plug‑in solar is having a moment in the U.S. For the first time, multiple states are actively debating how to treat small, consumer-installed solar systems—sometimes called balcony solar or plug‑and‑play solar. That’s great news for energy affordability, because plug‑in solar can help households reduce daytime grid consumption without the cost and complexity of traditional rooftop installs.
But there’s a risk: if lawmakers copy-paste the rules built for full rooftop solar—or focus on the wrong constraints—we’ll accidentally regulate plug‑in solar out of existence.
Our core argument in the full article is simple:
The policy mistake: confusing two different questions
Most proposed rules treat plug‑in solar as if it’s automatically a “grid-exporting generator.” That blends together two separate concerns:
- Home safety (Is the device safe to connect to household wiring?)
- Grid export (Will it push power back onto the utility grid, and under what conditions?)
When those get mixed, the default “solution” becomes a blunt one: cap the system size in watts. But a watt cap doesn’t directly answer either question well. It can still allow unsafe setups, and it can still create grid concerns—while also unnecessarily limiting the customer’s ability to offset their own usage.
The better approach: regulate export (if any), not self-consumption
Plug‑in solar is primarily about self-consumption—power that is used behind the meter to reduce what a home draws from the grid. If the policy goal is to protect the grid, the most precise lever is export behavior, not panel size.
That means policymakers can create clearer, more workable rules by separating the framework into two tracks:
1) Home safety: treat plug‑in solar like a consumer electrical product
Home safety should be anchored in established electrical safety practices (think: equipment standards and code-aligned installation requirements), so customers and regulators have confidence that systems operate predictably and safely.
2) Grid protection: set clear rules for “no export” (or limited export)
If a system is designed and configured to avoid export, then the utility-facing process should be lightweight—closer to a notification/registration model than a full interconnection study designed for much larger systems.
Why this matters
If plug‑in solar is regulated in a fit-for-purpose way, it can become a practical affordability tool:
- Faster adoption (weeks → days)
- Lower soft costs (less paperwork, fewer delays)
- More access for people who can’t do rooftop solar
- More predictable outcomes for utilities (clear export expectations)
Read the full article
This blog post is only the gist. The full argument, with the full context and policy framing, is in the original LinkedIn article co-authored by Jigar Shah and Stephan Scherer:
“Plug-in solar needshttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plug-in-solar-needs-smarter-rules-just-smaller-ones-jigar-shah-eu7ge/?trackingId=m5Y%2FvNYyRU%2B%2BkZXwbAJcOA%3D%3D smarter rules — just smaller ones”
