IP92P Third Party Certification for PV Installers Written almost nine years ago, Article 2 of IPP’s statement of incorporation as a non profit organization reads, “The primary objectives and purposes of this corporation shall be to promote and encourage the use of renewable energy by developing opportunities for end user ownership of renewable energy generation sources and encouraging a professional installation infrastructure adhering to recognized standards so as to encourage maximum confidence in and use of renewable energy to the spiritual and environmental betterment of the planet.” Since its inception, IPP has supported customer ownership of renewable generation technology and advocated for net metering and simplified interconnection policies supporting this goal. IPP also supports organizations such as Solar Energy International (SEI) that train solar installers and designers. A trained installing infrastructure is a critical component of a PV future. Consistent with this goal, I support the efforts of the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) to develop certification for solar installers. I am also on the board of directors of NABCEP. This is a personal endorsement, however, since a minority on the board of IPP opposes this endorsement as do some of our members. Certification and standards for technical issues and hardware have been, generally, much less fractious. Industry consensus has been achieved regarding standards and certification for inverters (UL 1741 and the designation “Non-Islanding Inverter”). The interconnection standard IEEE929 provides a technical framework so that utility engineers, inverter manufacturers and local jurisdictions can share a common technical perspective for utility connected PV. I can’t think of anyone that takes the position that these technical standards have harmed the industry and should be abandoned. The opposition of some to installer certification is a bit curious in that it is generally unrelated to any specific content of the NABCEP program. Nor does that opposition address the lack of installer competency that is beginning to be an issue as the PV industry grows. The certification proposed by NABCEB is voluntary. Certification of installer competency would be based upon the successful completion of a test. Elements of that test would include PV specific knowledge such as; array siting (shading, orientation), safety ( in sunshine panels always are on), the effects of temperature on system output, inverter types, dc voltage drop and wire sizing etc. A test candidate would qualify for the exam in a number of ways. The menu of access options is broad and designed not to exclude qualified candidates. A list of candidate prerequisites, a Task Analysis outlining the test’s content and a sample study guide, are available on the NABCEP web site. Readers interested in knowing more about NABCEP, it’s board members and technical advisory committees are encouraged to fully inform themselves. See Access. Some feel that State licensure (electrical contractor’s license for example) is sufficient to assure competent PV installations. A State contractors license may fulfill the legal requirements to do PV work but it certainly does not guarantee that the holder knows PV. Readers interested in just how disastrous this assumption can be should read Bob O Schultze’s article in Home Power 81. Likewise competency certification does not bestow the legal right to do work regulated by the states. Licensure and certification are totally different. Who are the people behind NABCEP? The board members of NABCEP represent an extremely diverse range of backgrounds and constituencies including: manufactures, solar industry associations (state and national), wrenches, national research laboratories, DOE, electrical unions, interstate renewable energy advocates and education. My experience on a personal level, based, in some cases on almost 10 years of association, is that these people are totally committed to a future of renewable energy. They have made renewables their life’s work. In that regard they share a common vision with the readers, authors, and publishers of this magazine. Solar Legislation in California Wins! In what was truly a legislative cliff hanger, three very important Solar bills (AB 58- 1 MW net metering, SB 1038- five more years of the buy down program, and SB1849-continuation of a 15% state tax credit) passed out of the California Legislature and have been sent to Governor Davis. He is expected to sign all three. Intense last minute deal making resulted in a harrowing final three weeks. Each bill was periodically in jeopardy due to attachments, riders and other unsatisfactory changes. In each case, large numbers of letters were generated by the solar community. A network of email communications and online letter writing tools were very effective. Additionally, a series of press articles throughout the state alerted the public to the attacks being made by the utilities on the state’s very successful solar programs. This should be a big lesson to all solar advocates everywhere. Get organized. Additionally, CALSEIA and its lobbyist, Lynch and Associates, were instrumental to this successful outcome. In this game you need to pay to play. You can find a chronicle of the almost daily changes and updates posted at the California Solar web site as well as archives of press articles. See Access IBEW Lockout Over On August 15, 2002 IBEW electricians removed the locks from the disabled residential PV systems in the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power utility district. Though the end of the lockout is welcome, there are many questions surrounding this situation that beg continued scrutiny (See IPP91). Graham Owen, Los Angeles wrench, offers his disturbing insights to this event. “The LADWP four-month PV lockout has ended and Department personnel on 8/15/02 removed the locks. Hooray!!There is a new 5 step inspection process, one of which includes making an appointment with a Department Electric Service Representative to establish where the AC disconnect will be located, this is prior to the system installation. This may sound like a waste of valuable contractor time, but the way I see it, I am happy to be installing systems again in my back-yard which means less drive time, substantially lower permit fee’s, much less hassle with non-LA Building and Safety Departments and of course the higher financial incentive for my customers. I am very pleased this unfortunate event has passed.Now I feel a need to quickly rant about what I perceive as what’s really going on in LA. Last year my company installed the first system under the Green LA Solar Power Program. Numerous times in the past year I had a feeling that LADWP didn’t really want to achieve their publicly stated goal of 100,000 solar roof tops by 2005. There have been constant glitches and delays, which have kept the pace of installations at a lower level than was achievable. There are only about 300 residential systems installed so far.Since deregulation of electricity in California 2.85% of ratepayers utility bills are diverted into a Public Benefit Trust fund for environmentally friendly projects, which benefit the public. LADWP lobbied to get these funds under their control from the City of Los Angeles for the Green LA. Program. A predetermined amount was set aside for a solar energy incentive. The problem is the wording in the program. “Buydown funds not spent each year may be used for Department solar photovoltaic projects”. That is LADWP gets the money for their own use.It appears that LADWP wants to use as much of these funds for their own projects as possible. I believe the reasoning behind this decision is that the Department will not have to credit ratepayers for solar generated electricity. In effect they get the ratepayers to subsidize solar power for their grid without having to deduct the amount generated from incoming revenue.The problem with this scheme, it costs the Department about $17 a watt for union prevailing wage installations, compared to $9 per watt average non-union contractor cost. I believe the solar subsidies were initiated for environmental reasons, period. More solar panels can be installed by non-union labor than can be installed by union labor for each block of funding. This is something politicians should be able to comprehend and hopefully future renewable energy subsidy programs will not have loosely worded documents with obvious conflicts of interest.Sizable contractors, which utilize the skilled labor of union electricians, have a place in large commercial PV system installations where increased labor costs are offset by lower material costs resulting from bulk purchasing. When I see the labor union interests flow over into the residential market I see storm clouds on the horizon. Graham Owen, GO Solar Company” Growing Questions about Munis One of the disturbing and unexpected changes in the net metering law was the option for public power companies (munis) to not allow net metering for systems greater than 10 kw. In fact, special wording in the net metering law just passed exempts LADWP from all net metering! This information in light of recent events reported about LADWP (the lockout and Grahams letter) begs the question “what’s up with LADWP”? I’m sure there will be more to report in future articles. In IPP80 (“What is SMUD Doing”) we asked a similar question regarding the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). At that time we questioned the very low prices SMUD claimed they could offer. Even more questionable was SMUD’s plan to market PV systems outside their own district. Quoting from IPP80, “Outside SMUD’s territory, low prices based upon Municipal tax subsidization and customer rate basing, looks like unfair business practices.” This criticism and several others have surfaced recently in a Sacramento Bee article of September 6, 2002 by Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, titled “Solar woes shock SMUD”. Among the various woes she writes of, “Solar installations outside SMUD’s area were mistakenly priced below cost, in essence making SMUD customers subsidize people in Davis and elsewhere.” Other problems revealed include a 2002 budget overrun of 100%, severe installation backlogs, and the precipitous departure of the SMUD Solar director, Don Osborn. See Access Not So Independent In IPP90 there was mention of independent PV companies. Independent , meaning they were not owned by a large oil company or utility. Among the companies listed was ASE. Mark Hammonds of BP Solar writes, “You describe “ASE and Astropower” as independent Photovoltaic companies. For the record ASE is owned by RWE; Germany’s largest utility. Owns coal and nuclear power stations in Germany and elsewhere. Also involved in water supply and is finalising purchase of American Water Works, which I believe at that point was the largest publicly traded water corporation in North America.” Thanks Mark for setting the record straight. See Access Sacramento Bee article, http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/4289785p-5309526c.html l