IPP88
Growing Pains
It’s been about two years since Xantrex purchased Trace Engineering. At that time there was some concern about possible changes and implications for the industry given Trace’s domination of the small inverter market. That concern was based on some fundamental issues. Mainly, the previous corporate culture at Trace was dominated by Engineers. Trace was a company founded and run by engineers. In general, an engineering perspective will emphasize technology first. The new owners come from a more traditional corporate background. Xantrex was able to purchase Trace (and don’t forget two of their West coast competitors) by borrowing over 100 million dollars. To a large extent this was possible because of the contacts and leverage within the financial community that Xantrex’s CEO was able to exercise. In short, the bean counters and suits took over.

Since the takeover there have been good and bad changes. On the positive side , Xantrex has attempted to clean up the distribution of its products by discouraging low ball advertising. Though the practical effect may be nil, the gesture is well taken. Xantrex has also taken the initiative to implement a Certified Dealer Program. Certified Dealers must pass a three hour examination, have field experience and provide documentation of successful PV system installations. As PV becomes mainstream it is increasingly important that the industry establish both hardware and installation standards focussing on “system” issues and performance. Xantrex is supporting these efforts.

And, there have been the bumps in the road. July, 2000 saw the rollout of the ST2500, Xantrex’s grid tie only inverter targeted for the residential market. The press release announcing the ST stated that units installed as part of the California Rebate program would enjoy a five year warranty. Subsequently Xantrex backed off and only offered the five year warranty as an after sale purchase option. Xantrex to this day refuses to acknowledge or publicly retract their initial warranty statement. A second problem with the ST involved the MPPT software. Field reports of low output were traced to problems with the tracking software. The problem was explained as an overly aggressive tracking algorithm that resulted in repeated, inappropriate shut downs. Subsequently the software was revised and in field reports indicate that it functions well enough. However, for reasons that are not clear, Xantrex released the STXR in April, 2001. Two issues here. First, in terms of published specifications, there is no difference in performance between the ST and the STXR, though the XR does offer a remote metering option and non volatile onboard kWh recording . Xantrex promoted the XR’s new tracking software, but that was already fixed. The biggest complaint is that the STXR, first advertised in April 2001, is still not available through distribution. The premature public announcements promoting the XR has only churned the already murky water around the ST. Sources in distribution suggest that the STXR won’t ship in production quantities until this Spring, a full year after the XR’s initial promotion.

On November 16th, Xantrex experienced a major pileup when UL revoked the listing for the SW series inverters. The background and inside details regarding this event are murky at this time. The specific reason given for de-certification was that the SWs failed to pass an anti islanding test as part of its listing under UL 1741. Customers with installed SWs should understand there is no safety issue here. There have been zero islanding problems in the field. The SWs failed a specific and very low probability simulated event in which the inverter loads exactly match the array output (balanced load) and, simultaneously, the grid goes down. Under these very specific conditions, the SW may take longer to disconnect from the grid than the time period allowed by UL 1741. For inverters purchased prior to November 2000, the earlier ETL listing is still valid. Both grid and offgrid systems installed before that date are fully compliant to ETL. SW inverters purchased after November 2000 do carry the UL 1741 certification and already installed grid connected systems could be challenged, though this is unlikely.

The most affected customers are those who have purchased SW inverters planning for grid tie applications but have yet to install them. Without UL certification the local utility may not allow interconnection. Californians planning to install a SW should also know that the California Energy Commission has de-listed this inverter. They no longer qualify for the buydown program. Please be clear that the SW is the only series affected. This is a temporary situation. Xantrex is working on a fix that will enable the SWs to pass the islanding test and be re-listed. This hopefully will happen very quickly. Xantrex is working with their dealers and distributors and has reassured all that this problem will be handled with integrity. As a minimum, customers with affected inverters should expect them to be restored to UL compliance at no additional cost.

As I said earlier, the inside details of how this happened are not clear. But I can say that this trouble was brewing for sometime. I suspect that Xantrex made unfulfilled promises to UL and the relationship between the two was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that UL finally pulled the plug on Xantrex. This is a big deal but it is fixable. Not only must Xantrex fix it with UL, they must fix it with their customers, dealers and distributors. Clear, honest communication with all, coupled with strong action taking financial responsibility for this problem can recover Xantrex’s credibility. However, the new management must take the heat for the current state of affairs and re-evaluate those policies that have eroded the company’s image. PR and marketing hype are not going to get the job done.

It’s Not Over
One of the greatest shortcomings of California Utility Restructuring was its failure to produce any significant competition. Since one of the primary stated goals of Restructuring was customer “choice”, it behooves us to ask what happened. My answer is that real competition was never the goal of restructuring. In fact, significant competition was specifically disallowed by language in the restructuring law that prohibited grouping together of customers. If individual customers had been allowed to aggregate into neighborhoods, co-ops, and even municipal buying groups, I think that competition and choice could have happened. The lesson here for other future attempts at restructuring is to make sure that customer aggregation is allowed. Without provisions for customer aggregation, restructuring is a phony sham!

Shortly after restructuring began in California it did appear that there was some choice for individual customers. This was because of the marketing of Green Power. The hope and assumption was that if customers were able to buy renewably sourced electricity, even if it cost a bit more, they would switch to a non regulated green provider. Even prior to the meltdown of California’s regulated utilities and electricity market, very few customers switched, less than 1%. Subsequently, Green Mountain , Enron and the other green providers dumped their customers back on the regulated utilities when the going got rough.

Today we have a very strange situation in California. Leftover as a residue of restructuring, we have nearly bankrupt regulated utilities responsible for the distribution of electricity on the one hand and on the other we have tremendously enriched unregulated cartels responsible for generation. Add to this very asymmetrical situation the fact that the State of California has liquidated a significant state surplus buying high priced power contracts in an attempt to temper the market. Maybe the strategy worked because the price for power has stopped escalating. But this is not very good business since the State bought high and is now selling low. In other words the taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of electricity in an attempt to stabilize the market. A major problem is that the wrong players are getting the subsidy. These generators are mostly burning fuel to make electricity and many are the same corporations that screwed Californians last Winter and Spring.

There is a new concern given that the State of California is now behaving as an electricity broker. Since the State owns a significant amount of electricity under contract, they must move it to market. It seems pretty clear that most of this capacity will be dispatched by the regulated utilities in the state. This relationship and State Government’s dependence on the regulated utilities to deliver State purchased electricity could compromise the State’s position as a regulator working in the public interest. The State now must protect their new business partners, the utilities. This is not just an abstract scenario. This unsavory alliance has consequences. One of which has already occurred, the elimination of choice and direct access. California utility customers can no longer choose their electricity provider. The State of California has a vested interest in maintaining the regulated utility as sole electricity provider. If the regulated utilities lost their captive customers because of choice, the State of California might be left holding the bag of unsold electricity.



Certification Effort
NABCEP (The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners) has extended the public comment period until March 1, 2002. A proposed PV Installer Certification Program has been posted at the NABCEP web site (www.nabcep.org) for comment and input. The comment period has been extended to allow all interested parties full input. The proposal at this time is fully amenable to stakeholder input.

IPP supports this project. In fact IPP’s bylaws of incorporation specifically make reference to standards and professionalism. From IPP bylaws, Article 2, “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.”

Mark Fitzgerald, past editor of “PV International” and currently president of the Institute of Sustainable Power (ISP) has written a white paper titled, “ Toward a Consensus National PV Practitioner Certification Framework”. Mark details both the history and rationale for certification. The complete article is available for downloading. See access.

A couple of Mark’s points will be made here. First, the interest in industry wide certification has been building for years. This is not an idea recently dreamed up by power mad bureaucrats. Several of the PV industry’s leading manufacturers for years have offered creditable training programs and several states are currently mandating certification and developing their own certification programs including Colorado, California and Florida. Organizations such as Solar Energy International (SEI) have developed training curricula ranging from introductory to extended hands-on classes. One of the goals of NABCEP is to incorporate the body of fine work already accomplished and harmonize the many efforts already extant into one program. The voluntary certification being developed by NABCEP would serve as a national model and hopefully the industry would not have to deal with the possibility of 50 disparate state requirements. With input from all sectors of the PV industry a reasonable certification standard can serve installers, manufacturers and the public. If we don’t take this on, others will. Shouldn’t those in the PV industry take charge and make sure that those standards are determined by PV professionals?

Software tools
Predicting system output is one of the important tasks provided by good professional installers. During the last several columns we have discussed simple estimating methods and suggested software design tools that can refine the estimating process by incorporating specific climatic, module, and siting information. Design software can also be a valuable learning tool useful for running “what if” scenarios. One caveat here. Design software is no substitute for experience. In fact field experience is necessary to close the loop between prediction and results. Only when the two agree can we claim that we know what we are doing.

Determining system output can be as simple as attaching a mechanical kWh meter to the output of the inverter. A reconditioned meter and socket cost around a $100 which shouldn’t price anyone out. More elaborate system monitoring is available. In the past, these setups have required input sensors for each logged parameter (volts, watts, amperage etc) connected to memory modules. The stored data must then be accessed, often using a phone line and modem. This type of data acquisition system can cost several thousand dollars to set up.

Owners of Trace SW and PS inverters have a lower cost option for system monitoring available. Xantrex markets the SWCA, a hardware – software option for these inverters. The hardware consists of an adapter that plugs into the “remote” port on the inverter. The output of the adapter is in serial format via a standard phone line and can be connected to a computer serial input or a modem if remote access over a phone is desired. Xantrex provides a software program in DOS which allows viewing and controlling the inverter from a computer.

The utility and value of the SWCA can be significantly increased by using “Trace Tools”, a Windows software package by Maui Solar Software. The program significantly expands the functionality of the SWCA in three areas. First, the display and access to the many settings and screens available are greatly improved. When the program is loaded and operating correctly, the primary screen lays out all the settings and meter readings in one view. Settings and meter readings are logically grouped according to function. After viewing the layout for a couple of minutes, I believe most users would agree that it is very intuitive. Actual meter readings are displayed in distinctive boxes. To change or adjust any parameter a user can “click” on the appropriate box and change values using a “slider” type control. Entire setup configurations can also be saved as files for future reloading.

Data logging is the second capability of Trace Tools. While the software is constantly scanning and displaying data to screen, it is also writing that data to memory. From this data file the program can generate short and long term graphs of all metered data. Both the data and the graphs can be exported. The figure shown here is a graph of our battery voltage over a 48 hour period.

Trace Tools is also communication enabled. Dial up capability allows a remote computer to connect to an off site SW inverter using a phone. The output of the remote inverter’s SWCA would be connected to a modem which in turn is connected to a phone line. Using this setup the remote computer can read and control all SW functions and log data by calling the modem on the phone. The program also has the capability to send e-mail alerts both when inverter errors are detected and when they are resolved. Trace Tools can also post and update graphs to a selected web site.

A soon to be added feature of Trace Tools is the logging of array data. Combining array output data and inverter data will allow for complete system monitoring. Energy inputs, backup kWh and array kWh, combined with inverter output kWh will a enable comprehensive system monitoring.


For professionals who may need to manage and log multiple SW systems remotely or users who want a simpler way to program and record system performance, the SWCA and Trace Tools offers a very cost effective approach. The adapter and the software, both together about $250, costs a tenth the price for other data collection systems.


California Legislation and Rebate program
The California PV Alliance met mid December 2001. Sandy Miller of the California Energy Commission provided updates on the PV buydown program. Total PV capacity installed to date is about 6 mW. If the totals for approved and received systems are included with the already installed capacity, the total future PV capacity is about 16 mW. This marks the completion of the first 4 years of the program as authorized by AB 1890. Thanks to CEC staff, unused money from other programs was transferred to the Emerging account and there is funding that will carryover into early 2002. The long term funding extension for the Emerging Renewables program depends on timely legislation promised for early 2002. The extended funding has already been approved as part of SB 1194 but specific authorization to spend the money did not pass during last years session because it was attached to another bill that lost. That mistake should not happen again. Legislation authorizing continued funding for Emerging Renewables will be a priority for early 2002.

Equal priority will be given the re-legislation of AB29. This bill establishes a 1 mW net metering limit and was enacted last year. Unfortunately, due to political timidity and behind the scenes arm twisting, the law was written with a 2 year sunset and expires at the end of this year! Plan on heavy opposition from the utilities. Last issue (IPP87) we detailed the problems Mr. Adelman was having with PG&E, his local utility. (See Access) Given that his utility is already violating the existing law and preventing Mr. Adelman from net metering, it is a no brainer to expect utility opposition to the re-legislation of a 1 mW net metering law. Additionally a formal protest challenging PG&E’s refusal to net-meter Mr. Adelmans 30 kw PV system is before the California Public Utilities Commission . A favorable outcome before the Commission will pave the way for a successfully re-legislated one megawatt net-metering law.




Access
Don Loweburg, Independent Power Providers (IPP), PO Box 231, North Fork, CA 93643 * 559-877-7080 * Fax: 559-877-2980 * don.loweburg@homepower.com * http://www.i2p.org


Solar Energy International (SEI), PO Box 715, Carbondale, CO 81623 * 970-963-8855 * Fax: 970-963-8866 * sei@solarenergy.org * http://www.solarenergy.org

The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP), Institute for Sustainable Power, PO Box 260145, Highlands Ranch, CO 80163 * 303-683-4748 * 303-470-8239 * markfitz@ispq.org * http://www.ispq.org * http://www.nabcep.org

Xantrex Technology Inc., Distributed Residential and Commercial Markets, 5916 195th St. NE, Arlington, WA 98223 * 360-435-8826 * Fax: 360-435-2229 * inverters@traceengineering.com * http://www.xantrex.com

Kenneth Adelman, 1365 Meadowridge Rd., Corralitos, CA 95076 * adelman@adelman.com * http://www.solarwarrior.com

California Solar Energy Industries Association (CAL SEIA), PO Box 782, Rio Vista, CA 94571 * 800-225-7799 or 949-837-7430 * Fax: 949-586-2357 * lt anelson@worldnet.att.net* http://www.calseia.org

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102 * 800-649-7570 or 415-703-2782 * Fax: 415-703-1758 * consumer-affairs@cpuc.ca.gov * http://www.cpuc.ca.gov

California PV Alliance (PVA), Tor Allen, c/o The Rahus Institute, 1535 Center Ave., Martinez, CA 94553 * 925-370-7262 * Fax: 815-461-1465 * tor@rahus.org * http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/calpvalliance.html

Maui Solar Software, Mike Pelosi, 810 Haiku Road #113 Box 1101, Haiku, HI 96708 * 808-573-0135 * http://www.mauisolarsoftware.com * sales@mauisolarsoftware.com *