IPP91
IBEW Shuts Down Residential PV Systems in Los Angeles
Since April 19, 2002 members of IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) have been shutting down PV systems in the LADWP (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) utility district. Reports are, that without notification to the customer or the installing contractor, an IBEW worker shuts off the visible lockable disconnect that is required between the inverter and utility service entrance and locks it in the off position This practice has halted the installation of PV systems by reputable contractors because when the customer is informed of the potential lockout, they defer the start of the project. Some, not so reputable contractors, do not tell the customer of this situation and let them hang out to dry. Interestingly, commercial systems that are typically union installed, are not being locked out.

What is the justification for this practice? Quoting from an April 25, 2002 letter from LADWP being sent to affected customers: “The Department is in the process of enhancing its internal procedures pertaining to the interconnection of solar Photovoltaic (PV) systems to our utility grid, in order to insure the safety of our field workers.” On June 24, 2002, I contacted Darryl Gordon, LADWP contact person designated in the letter. He confirmed that the lockout was taking place, affecting all residential systems installed after April 19, and that it would continue until at least August 15. He also stated that 23 systems had been locked out (as of June 24) and that the rate of residential system installation in the district had dropped. He added that the installation of commercial systems had picked up. Possibly the most alarming information Darryl provided, though not mentioned in the letter, concerned the location of the lockable disconnect. He stated that, at the discretion of IBEW field inspectors, the lockable switch may be required to be “street” accessible. In the past, and in other utility districts, the lockable disconnect is usually required to be within eight to ten feet of the main service panel and meter. This new requirement by IBEW would, in some cases, require extremely long wire runs resulting in increased system cost and impaired system performance, such as frequent inverter shut down, due to voltage drop issues. In some cases the disconnect would be vulnerable to shut down by vandals. This new requirement by IBEW creates additional barriers and has already discouraged some potential PV installations in the LADWP district.

There is a history to the requirement for the lockable disconnect. Initially all utilities required a lockable disconnect based on their experience with co-generation and the fact that these sources consisted of rotating machinery for which there was no way to quickly and automatically shut them down other than a physical switch. However, the inverters used in modern PV systems are entirely different. Being microprocessor controlled, they can respond very quickly to a wide range of conditions and, as required, disconnect automatically from the grid. During the formulation of the current technical standards for interconnecting PV systems to the grid (IEEE 929, Non Islanding Inverter- UL 1741 and NEC 690 ), a collaboration of utility and PV industry engineers developed rigorous tests and protocols for the safe interconnection of modern inverters to the grid. All inverters meeting these standards automatically disconnect from the grid under all possible required conditions. As a consequence, none of these standards require the lockable disconnect. Sandia Laboratories also recognized the redundancy and non-necessity of the lockable switch and clearly states this in their handbook on interconnection of PV to utility systems. And finally, the Solar Electric Power Association (formerly UPVG- Utility Photovoltaic Group) a coalition of utilities responsible for 50% of the nation’s electricity generation, PV industry members and others committed to the widespread inclusion of PV in the nation’s energy supply, do not support the requirement of a lockable disconnect. Quoting from their October, 2000 position statement regarding the interconnection of small (under 10 kW) PV systems to the grid: “Manual external disconnects should not be required for PV systems under 10 kW. For UL-listed, non-islanding inverters, which already have external AC disconnects, an additional external AC disconnect is redundant.” See Access

Not all utilities require the lockable disconnect for small PV systems. But, many do, and given the overwhelming lack of technical support from their own engineers and organizations, the question is why? Several years ago, before elements in the PV industry and this author caved in on this issue, I was told by a very credible person in the industry that behind the scenes it was the IBEW position requiring the lockable disconnect that dictated utility requirements. Paraphrasing his view, “No utility was willing to go up against the IBEW even if the union was wrong. The PV industry should get over it and move on.” The mantra of capitulation went, “Its only a $100 switch. What’s the big deal?” I think it is clearer now what the big deal is.

This issue is not about safety but about control. Of course this is not what the union says. They claim it is about not installing grid systems until the proper work practices and training programs are in place. My sources in Los Angeles counter this explanation, suggesting that the union is negotiating for raises and using the PV safety issue as leverage.

At this time, the majority of the residential systems installed in Los Angeles and in the rest of the country are being installed by independents. Is the IBEW trying to muscle in and control the installation of PV systems? This could be the case. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the IBEW is not shutting down the commercial systems that their members have installed. Additionally, statements made in IBEW publications could lead to this conclusion. Quoting from The Quality Connection, March 2001, “It’s official: The IBEW and NECA (National Electrical Contractors Association) want to be the leaders in solar photovoltaics—to take advantage of whatever opportunities this technology may yet offer. Together, electrical workers and contractors (union contractors) are preparing the necessary programs to ensure our industry’s success. The goal is to keep under their joint umbrella all the work related to electrical construction—and photovoltaics, the conversion of the sun’s energy into electricity, certainly qualifies!” And from June 2001 issue of IBEW Journal we read: “It is becoming more and more feasible to install these solar systems on homes and commercial buildings,” said Local 332 Business Manager Terry D. Tanner. “We need to make sure IBEW members are the ones doing this work.” See Access

In defense of IBEW I would note that they have made a significant commitment to PV. IBEW has installed PV on many of its union halls and set up a top notch training program for their members. They are to be lauded for these actions. I believe the union and its members should be rewarded for their progressive and far sighted vision. Trained, certified and knowledgeable union installers with hands on experience should have no problem in a competitive PV work environment. However, resorting to “old guard” tactics like locking out non-union installed PV systems should be avoided. They hurt the customer, other installers, and the PV industry generally. Tactics like the lock out will ultimately backfire, hurting the union and its membership.

Four Case Histories- PV Success Stories
During past years in this column we have discussed predicting PV system output and the importance of communicating this information to the customer (IPP65, 85, 87). Presented here are four systems installed last year. Each system has output metering and the customers were willing to provide billing information to this author. The systems might be characterized as: peak shaving, time of use (no batteries), time of use (batteries and array tracker) and super efficient home. All four are grid connected.

1. Peak Shaving –Reyes System
I call this system peak shaving because the PV system produces about 30% of the households electricity demand. Because of the relatively high (1687 kWh / month before PV) average consumption, the Reyes family paid an average of $.19 US per kWh after the rate hike in California last June. After installing a grid tied PV system, consisting of thirty two 120 watt modules, the average monthly electricity use fell to 1257 kWh/month., a reduction of 430 kWh/month. Interestingly, the documented output of the PV system is about 515 kWh/month, meaning their daily load increased slightly by about 3kWh/day. The yearly value of the PV power produced (figured at $.19 US/kWh multiplied times 6200 kWh/year) is $1,178 US. The Reyes family was eligible for the California PV rebate and a 15% State tax credit making the out of pocket expenditure for the system $13,695 US. Simple payback for this system is under 12 years.

The Reyes are very satisfied with the performance of their system. They successfully curtailed an escalating utility bill. If they had not installed PV, their utility bill , based on the new rates, would have averaged $320 US/month. With the PV system in place, their actual average utility electric bill was $226 US/month. The reduction of $94 US/month equates to $1,128 US/year

2. Time of Use – Zastovnik System
Time of use (TOU) billing charges more for power used during mid day (on peak) and less during evenings and weekends (off peak). Utilities offer this rate as an incentive to encourage customers to shift loads to off peak times, thereby increasing the utilities available capacity during the on peak time. In California the summer peak rate is about $.30 US /kWh while off peak is about $.08 US. The California net metering law stipulates that utilities must offer the same rate as a credit to PV generated power delivered to the grid during on-peak times. In other words, excess PV power delivered to the grid during on-peak times is worth $.30 US/kWh. For net metered utility customers capable of deferring load to off-peak times, TOU net metering is a very good deal.

The Zastovniks had a historical average electricity usage of about 750 kWh/month. They decided to install forty eight 120 watt modules with the goal of matching , as closely as possible, their average monthly electrical consumption with PV power. In addition, they opted to apply for TOU net metering.

TOU net metering was begun in October 2001. Billing information to date goes through mid May. During this period total charges for electricity are $10. Since this does not reflect the upcoming summer peak period when TOU is particularly advantageous, it a safe bet to predict the system will outperform initial expectations and deliver significant excess credits by the end of the summer. Being conservative and basing the pay back on the minimum yield of the system, 750 kWh/month @ $.14/kWh, this system takes about 14 years to pay back in what I will call the California scenario (Rebate + 15% tax credit). Given expectations of a significant excess summer generation, I believe pay back will happen sooner. Ron Zastovnik has setup a web page with photos, graphs and some discussion giving his point of view. See Access

3.TOU with Battery Backup and Tracker-Russell System
This system has twenty four 120 watt modules but unlike the other grid systems profiled here, uses batteries and a tracker. In general, I do not recommend batteries in grid connected systems because system efficiency is lowered. However in this case, the Russells felt that backup was a critical requirement. There were two rationales for this choice. Firstly, power outages are more frequent in the foothill region of central California. Secondly, Rob Russell is a programmer and developer of embedded computer systems working from his home. Down time equals lost work. In fact the Russells had been using batteries and inverters as part of a backup system for several years prior to the addition of PV modules. They were also very comfortable with TOU and had been load shifting during those two years. What they had been doing was to charge batteries at night (off peak) and then disconnect from the utility during peak rate times and operate the entire house offgrid. Using this strategy they were able to reduce their utility bill by 33%. Given the availability of the CA rebate, they decided to install PV modules and switch from load shifting to grid tie mode. The use of a tracker was based on two factors. First, being rural, the Russells had space for them. Secondly, trackers deliver their greatest benefit in the summer time and this is when TOU rates are the highest.

Prior to the PV installation, the year 2000 average utility bill was $73 and the Russell’s average monthly electric consumption was 900 kWh. The PV modules were added to the system January 1, 2001 and the system operated in backup mode, meaning the inverters were programmed in Float mode rather than Sell, for 5 months. The reason for not operating in grid tie (Sell) mode was that the local utility took five months getting the net metering account set up. During these five months the average utility bill dropped to $39 US and the monthly utility-purchased electricity use dropped to 430 kWh.. The system began operating in “Sel”mode with net metering TOU in June, 2001. During the following four months, significant on-peak credits exceeded the off peak consumption giving the Russells a net credit for the Summer-Fall season of $29 US. On June 15, 2002, the Russells received their yearly bill for net electricity used during the first June to June year. The bill for that year’s amount of electricity purchased from the utility was $85!

4.Super Efficient – Alvis Project
The Integrated Energy Smart Home completed in May, 2001 marries PV and supper efficient construction methods. Called the “Swift House” after the street in Fresno, California, where it is located, this project was built by the Alvis brothers (Mark, Marlin and Lyle) for resale. Their philosophy was that a high quality supper energy efficient home with PV would be attractive in the market place and could be built as an economic investment. Their progressive view was rewarded with the recent sale of the home at asking price.

The walls of the home are constructed using insulated concrete forms (ICF). As the name suggests, these are hollow Styrofoam blocks that are assembled into walls and then have concrete poured into the hollow cavity. Functionally the walls have the strength of a concrete wall wrapped in insulation, providing high thermal mass and a high R value. The outside and inside wall surfaces are clad in conventional building materials, stucco and drywall in this case. The roof is made of structural insulated panel (SIP). SIP a laminate of a Styrofoam core faced with 5/8” OSB (chip board). The 12” thick panels are very strong and offer a high R value. Other features of the home include high efficiency appliances, compact fluorescent lighting and a high efficiency air conditioner. Architectural design features include generous eves and overhangs that shade the walls. The roof mounted PV array installed during construction consists of twenty four 120 watt modules.

The utility service is net metered using a standard tariff (no TOU). During the past year, the PV system produced an average output of 11 kWh/day (330 kWh/month) as measured by the onboard metering. Total purchased electricity for the year (June to June) was 415 kWh (35 kWh/month)! The total monthly consumption for the home during this period was 365 kWh (330 + 35). Comparing this to the average consumption in Fresno which is over 900 kWh/month, the Swift house uses 60% less electricity. Keep in mind that the house used air conditioning, served as a residence for two people, was used as a sales office for Alvis Projects, and hosted numerous open house events. The cost for purchased electricity was about $50 US for the entire year. Alvis Projects has a web site featuring a detailed history of the project. See Access.

The four projects outlined here differ from one another and represent varied ways PV can serve differing customer goals. It is important to understand that the value of PV is very customer specific. Good PV designer-installers listen to their customer’s needs and then can suggest an intelligent solution.


Don Loweburg, IPP, PO Box 231, North Fork, CA 93643 , 559-877-7080 Fax 559-877-2980
don.loweburg@homepower.com

www.i2p.org

Solar Electric Power Association’s Interconnection Position
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/interconnection/positionstatement.cfm

Super Efficient Construction + PV
http://www.alvisprojects.com

Ron Z’s TOU PV System
http://psych.csufresno.edu/ronz/solar.htm

IBEW Statement on PV
http://www.necanet.org/about/president/pd04_01.htm

LADWP Contact Person, Daryl Gordon 213-367-3250