Solar

[tmurray]

That makes too much sense to gain traction in the solar industry.

We have those. They're called tension control bolts. You generally see them on large commercial jobs and it alleviates the requirement for someone to come around after and check to make sure the torque on the bolts is what is required.

 

[tmurray]

California is finally being forced to do something about these solar scams: Originally Posted by California Contractors License Board Newsletter

As the true-up bills come in it's obvious this isn't working, I think I'll go to the next Board meeting and propose that they make all contractors installing solar put the amount of savings in the contract and put up a $1 million bond guaranteeing those savings so defrauded people have a way to recoup their losses. Too bad we can't make the building departments pay too for aiding and abetting this scam.

¹ http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/New...er_2014-15.pdf

But that's the issue right? You have people who are not qualified to calculate how much energy will be produced in these systems selling them and misleading their customers. This is no different than the weekend warrior who builds a deck for their neighbor and are paid in beer. Next winter the deck falls off the house because it was not installed correctly and there were no inspections because the "contractor" didn't bother to pull the permit. The difference is how the government is subsidizing it. Governments (both here in Canada and in the US) subsidize fossil fuels, but do so in the extraction and refining process. Renewables should be the same way; subsidies should be for building factories and research, not to end users.

 

[jdfruit]

"Too bad we can't make the building departments pay too for aiding and abetting this scam." (conarb)

Given the CA legislation to "grease" the process (solar companies are the very squeaky wheel with Sacto), the building departments are not aiding and abetting, just doing their ministerial duty as required by law. Unfortunately the CSLB doesn't have enough people in investigation/enforcement to cover the over promised energy savings "scam". It will take a large consumer group knocking on doors or a class action lawsuit to get the legislators to recognize the problem and maybe do something about it. There are other significant issues involved as well; Ownership of the system, maintenance needs over time, and contractor competency to actually perform the work.

We can continue to beat this horse, but let's not clog up ICE's thread. Anyone interested in a separate thread?

 

[MASSDRIVER]

But that's the issue right? You have people who are not qualified to calculate how much energy will be produced in these systems selling them and misleading their customers.

They are qualified. If most people knew the reality it would be a dying industry. People are being convinced, as we speak, to put solar arrays on their roofs in the Sunset District of San Francisco. It's so foggy there those folks don't even know what the Sun is. It's just a hot thing they heard rumors of that might exist.

The City at one point wanted to put arrays on a city reservoir that covers 2 square blocks. I don't know if someone smart ever came along to tell the idiots it wont work. I doubt it.

But don't fool yourself. It's outright deception most of the time.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

People are being convinced, as we speak, to put solar arrays on their roofs in the Sunset District of San Francisco. It's so foggy there those folks don't even know what the Sun is. It's just a hot thing they heard rumors of that might exist.

On a similar vein, about 15 years ago when the retrofit window scam was in full swing, the license board sent me over to see a woman in San Francisco, when I went into the home I saw an elderly black woman sitting in a chair covered in a heavy shawl, she had replaced good quality aluminum windows with cheap PVC dual pane windows. I asked her why she did it and she said: "I just wanted to be toasty warm.", the cold air was blowing right through the cheap sliding windows. I had recently taken a one-day PG&E course from one of the authors of the AAMA InstallationMasters training manual, I called him right there from my cellphone telling him about the wind blowing through the windows. He said: "Of course she's colder, she lives in cold foggy San Francisco, she has blocked out her solar heat gain." I responded: "Shouldn't people in San Francisco be told that installing dual pane windows with the wrong coatings is going to actually increase their utility bills?" He said: "Of course not, if we can get everybody in the state to replace their windows we can conserve 2% statewide, we can't go dividing the state up into micro-climates, and the manufactures have to make and sell a one-size-fits-all window."

With the solar panel scam we are seeing the same thing we saw with the dual pane window scam, and the building inspectors did and are doing nothing about it. The least you can do knowing it to be a scam is to turn down everything you can and make it as diccicult as you can, if you make it hard enough they may even pull their telemarketers from your area.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

the building inspectors did and are doing nothing about it. The least you can do knowing it to be a scam is to turn down everything you can and make it as diccicult as you can, if you make it hard enough they may even pull their telemarketers from your area.

I think ICE is pulling that barge best he can.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

I think ICE is pulling that barge best he can.Brent.

Maybe he can do some good and make up for some of the damage he causes people by enforcing the social justice codes.

 

[ICE]

I have been a fly in the solar industry's ointment. Not for the reason of slowing down the growth or to expose the scam. I have just been trying to get safe installations.

 

[tmurray]

...He said: "...we can't go dividing the state up into micro-climates...

I worked for almost a year as a certified energy advisor and in my small province we are divided up into 5 climate zones. ASHRAE does the same thing with a significant amount of countries. The problem you're hinting at is what we addressed in our federal energy efficiency program; no two houses are the same, so a qualified energy advisor spends around three hours in a home with the owner to determine what the best options are for the owner. They are paid by owner and the government with the intention that they are unbiased.

Brent, when I say qualified I generally mean that they can actually do calculations based on orientation at the actual site AND provide them to the owners. To me being technically qualified and actually qualified are two different things. I've had a red seal certified carpenter put cantilevered trusses in backwards in a house and I've had a guy with a grade 4 education and no further training do the best framing I've ever seen. And I know everyone on this forum, yourself included, probably has a story like this. Just because someone has a card saying they can do something doesn't mean they actually can or should.

 

[conarb]

Brent, when I say qualified I generally mean that they can actually do calculations based on orientation at the actual site AND provide them to the owners. To me being technically qualified and actually qualified are two different things. I've had a red seal certified carpenter put cantilevered trusses in backwards in a house and I've had a guy with a grade 4 education and no further training do the best framing I've ever seen. And I know everyone on this forum, yourself included, probably has a story like this. Just because someone has a card saying they can do something doesn't mean they actually can or should.

TMurray:

After I installed windows (all Low E 172) in homes and later found that they did not save any energy, notably from a retired PG&E engineer who provided me with a spreadsheet showing energy consumption month by month before and after the installation, he even got government climate data and factored in the temperature differences between the two years, I set up a meeting with the late Dariush Arastech of the Daylighting Institute at the LBL. By then I had read up on the subject and was using the LBL's Window 5 to engineer my coatings and RESFEN to locate the coatings on the proper elevations. I suggested that by code all contractors be required to perform their computer analyses and inspectors be required to check them, since they wrote the programs it was in their interest that they be mandated. His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs, my response was that architects are smart enough, his response was that not everyone could afford to hire an architect.

 

[jdfruit]

" His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs,..."

I would expect that a majority of inspectors and a sizable number of contractors could run the program. Whether they are willing is the question. The difficulty will be getting contractors to actually follow what is calculated by the program during purchasing and installation. Then the added complexity for inspection will be a time/cost loss to the building inspection budget for the current fee structure. Charging more for the service will not play in Peoria for contractor groups and political admin decision makers.

Requiring truth in advertising with adequate data to support the claim and having sufficient State enforcement is the best method I can think of to get the "scam" out.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Substitute the word "smart" with "educated".

Lets be accurate here.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

Running RESFEN isn't that hard, but running Window (now) 6.3 is, you have to constantly download libraries as glass changes, then find fabricators who will fabricate to your specifications, to my knowledge no American manufacturers will do that, I've been buying out of Canada for 15 years, we have a new problem importing from Canada, nobody wants to sell in California anymore because of our tax system, I can't even get Cardinal (the biggest IG unit manufacturer in the country) to deliver glass to me from their Hood River Oregon factory, I end up having glass shipped to Canada then the fabricated units shipped by common carrier down here, I have to arrange and pay for all shipping, between California's taxes and our Supreme court decision making window manufacturers strictly liable for all defects, even installation defects, it is hard to get good windows here.

I've linked both RESFEN and Window 6.3 above, why don't you download and install the programs, they are free paid for with out taxes and they are the industry standard, you are an architect who you should be among those smart enough to run the programs, report back and tell us if you are able to specify the proper glass in the proper elevations and if you think the average contractor and inspector can handle it? Just to give you an idea, on the last home I built here is the specification for one elevation: Triple-Pane w/LoĒ³-366, LoĒ-179, LoĒ-i81, Argon 0.15 BTW, on that order my use taxes coming in to California were over $15,000 and they didn't pick up all of them.

 

[conarb]

Substitute the word "smart" with "educated".Lets be accurate here.

Brent.

Brent:

Since you brought it up I'll tell more of that story, when I went to the meeting I brought an engineer friend with me and since I was going into enemy territory I wore a Stanford shirt to assert my dominance. When I sat down at the conference table Arastech asked: "How did they let you through the gates?", I just told him that I had a security clearance which is old from the 60s when I build some buildings there (including two cyclotrons). Later when he made the comment above about being smart enough he also said: "Not everyone can afford to pay a Stanford graduate to build their homes", I responded: "Maybe they should, Cal graduates sure aren't smart enough to build them."

 

[tmurray]

TMurray:After I installed windows (all Low E 172) in homes and later found that they did not save any energy, notably from a retired PG&E engineer who provided me with a spreadsheet showing energy consumption month by month before and after the installation, he even got government climate data and factored in the temperature differences between the two years, I set up a meeting with the late Dariush Arastech of the Daylighting Institute at the LBL. By then I had read up on the subject and was using the LBL's Window 5 to engineer my coatings and RESFEN to locate the coatings on the proper elevations. I suggested that by code all contractors be required to perform their computer analyses and inspectors be required to check them, since they wrote the programs it was in their interest that they be mandated. His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs, my response was that architects are smart enough, his response was that not everyone could afford to hire an architect.

I wouldn't argue with windows not saving energy. When I was an energy advisor most of the houses I went in to wanted new, more energy efficient windows. The only time I actually recommended window replacement as an energy upgrade were when they had old aluminum slider windows. They were used a lot in the 70s around here and are very leaky and (obviously) the aluminum is a bad thermal bridge. The tend to get a lot of condensation and freeze here in our Canadian winters. The window manufacturers are just really good at marketing. Don't get me wrong, we modeled all the energy upgrades that were recommended or that the client wanted, but when we're talking about switching from quality built wood windows to decent vinyl windows, we're talking about saving a couple dollars a year. When most people saw that they could spend about ten thousand dollars and save less than 50 dollars a year in energy, it doesn't gain much traction.

 

[conarb]

I threw down a challenge above to the contractors, architects, and inspectors, to download and run the window programs necessary to make the windows actually work, so far I've had no takers, so bringing this full circle back to Tiger's thread on solar energy I've reported before that some people have been defrauded by installing solar panels since their energy bills are higher than before they installed them to say nothing of the costs of leasing or buying them. It seems prudent to me that an architect designing a structure, a contractor installing the panels, or an AHJ permitting the installation ought to be able to analyze the performance so the owner isn't defrauded. It is very complicated but here is an engineer who installed them on his own home doing an analysis one year after when he got his first true-up bill. The is only part of his analysis read the entire process and consider doing it for all customers because there are different utility plans to pick from:

Understanding true-up billing

First, the monthly bill. Where does this $12 come from? It turns out PG&E charges E-6 (TOU) customers a “meter charge” of approximately $0.25 per day. E6 and E-1 both also have a “minimum charge” of approximately $0.15 per day; they don’t explain what this means, but if my reverse engineering of my bills is correct, for NEM customers it’s essentially a placeholder for your usage before they know what your usage is. These fees added together and multiplied by the number of days in a billing cycle yield the approximately $12 amount that I was billed for each month (billing cycles ranged from 28 to 32 days, so the monthly bill ranged from $11.22 to $12.83, with the most common bill being $12.02 for a 30-day billing cycle).

Second, the usage charges. These are not simple (since they involve both the tiering and TOU calculations), but they are actually decently explained on the monthly NEM statement itself, and with one nitpicky exception8, they’re the same as what you had before you added NEM, and the true-up calculation doesn’t affect them.

Third, the cumulative usage charge. This one is completely straightforward: add the usage charges for the current true-up period, to date. Each NEM statement shows the current cumulative charge (this amount) and the amount by which it changed (the month’s usage charge), and you can verify that the current cumulative balance is equal to the previous month’s balance plus/minus the current month’s usage charge/credit. However, as mentioned above, this amount will swing one direction and then correct due to seasonal variation,

Fourth, the true-up amount. This is a simple calculation if you know where it comes from, but PG&E doesn’t explain it, so I had to reverse engineer it, learning to understand the daily meter and minimum charges. What it boils down to is that the $0.15 “minimum charge” is not a real charge once the true-up period is over, but a provisional placeholder: you pay this with each month’s $12 bill, but at the end of the year, when your real usage is known, you get back the provisional amount and pay the real amount. At the end of the year, you take your usage charge/credit, and add the meter charge ($0.25 per day or about $7.50 per monthly bill or $92.33 in a full year9), and that’s what you owe for the year. Except you’ve already paid that meter charge, plus you’ve paid the “minimum” usage charge as a provisional placeholder. So subtract the provisional usage charge ($0.15 per day or about $4.50 per monthly bill or $53.96 in a full year), and you have the amount that’s unpaid, that you must still pay in order to True Up. So, your first 11 bills are for 30-ish days of meter charges and minimum charges, totaling about $12; your 12th bill is for 30-ish days of meter charges, minus 335-ish days of minimum charges, plus your cumulative usage charge for the whole year. In my case, actual usage at the end of the year was $60.22, of which $46.27 had already been paid monthly as that “minimum” charge, so what I’d call the actual true-up component was $13.95; add in $8.07 in meter fees (32 days at $0.25/day) for the final billing period and we have what PG&E calls my true-up bill of $22.02.¹

Are architects, contractors, or building inspectors smart enough to run these calculations? I have a neighbor who is an engineer, he leased them and has finally received his "true-up" bill, it's a little over $700 for the first year, he pays a little over $200 a month to lease them, so he is now about $258 a month for his electric usage, his prior bill before installing the panels was about $45 a month average, about the same as mine. Isn't it the job of the AHJ to protect the consumer from these frauds? If not what is the job of an inspector?

¹ http://blog.metamatt.com/blog/2012/11/09/one-year-of-solar-power/

 

[Wayne]

Solar

If you've got time on your hands, this link is a great read about one man's journey to install solar in Henderson Nevada which happens to be where I live.

http://solarelectirc.blogspot.com/2014/03/in-beginning.html?m=1

 

[conarb]

Thanks for that Wayne, I guess you can't get better solar than in Nevada with 111° temperatures. I think readers should put Terry's numbers to work in their own location. BTW, I disagree with him on the cleaning, I'm sure there must be more dust in Henderson than in the Bay Area, but people have contracts here with companies that wash and maintain their panels, maybe if he kept them clean he'd get better numbers. He mentioned permit but only referred to power company inspection and not building department inspection, I bet from those pictures our own Tiger could tear it apart.

 

[Wayne]

Solar

Dust is a very big issue here and you can dust your house one day and the next day it's dusty again. It's a fact of life in the Las Vegas Valley.

The company that did the work is a medium size organization that does good work at the airport I work at. The guy in charge of their solar division is a professor at UNLV teaching about solar forv what is worth.

The local power company NV Energy must do a final inspection before net metering can start and the panels can be tied in. The local AHJ does inspections just like other jurisdictions. This one would be done by the City of Henderson.

Another interesting note is that Nevada law (NRS) restricts solar installs that qualify for net metering to 3% total. Right now the solar industry and NV Energy are fighting it out in the legislature to see if the limit is raised or left alone since Nevada should hit the max this year and that'll make the solar industry fall flat here.

http://m.reviewjournal.com/politics/advocates-accuse-state-nv-energy-anti-solar-bias

 

[tmurray]

Isn't it the job of the AHJ to protect the consumer from these frauds? If not what is the job of an inspector?

Nope. It's my job to make sure it's safe. The last thing anyone wants is for building inspectors to dictate what makes financial sense when it comes to construction. That's what I did when I was an energy advisor. When the federal and state (in my case provincial) government is giving away money for people do do something, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have their own representatives to make sure this money is spent well? This was my job. To make sure tax dollars were well spent. I'd be furious if my tax dollars were given away with no oversight like this.

 

[conarb]

TMurray:

Makes us wonder why Canada can do such a better job than the U.S., I remember on our old Bulletin Board when we were fighting over the fire sprinkler scam, I found a good study by the Canadian National Mortgage Association showing that residential fire sprinklers were a waste of money, showing how the money could be put to much better life saving usage. In the U.S. stakeholders like the industry profiting or various environmental advocacy groups with large sums of money dictate what we do. In the Great White North do the so-called stakeholders determine what's done?

 

[tmurray]

TMurray:Makes us wonder why Canada can do such a better job than the U.S., I remember on our old Bulletin Board when we were fighting over the fire sprinkler scam, I found a good study by the Canadian National Mortgage Association showing that residential fire sprinklers were a waste of money, showing how the money could be put to much better life saving usage. In the U.S. stakeholders like the industry profiting or various environmental advocacy groups with large sums of money dictate what we do. In the Great White North do the so-called stakeholders determine what's done?

Well, code changes are evaluated by committees that are made up of builders, engineers, industry and the general public. Before it gets there, the code change has to fit in our performance based objectives. I'll reference sprinklers in this case to provide an example; a code change request comes in and is submitted first for technical review. To be eligible for a code change a life safety component must average 3 million dollars per life saved or less(last I heard, but this figure might have changed). Sprinklers based on the CMHC report you referenced were approximately 38 million dollars per life saved. It doesn't meet the technical qualifications then it doesn't even get seen by the committee. The main issue here is the time it takes to evaluate and change the code. We already have a 5 year code cycle and it's unlikely that you get your provision into the next version of the code, so it can be 10 years or more for a code change. For this reason we put into place provisions called "Alternate Solutions", basically a proponent of an alternate means (through new materials or techniques) provides documentation to demonstrate that their solution will meet the minimum performance of the code. As a building inspector all I have to do is ensure they evaluated the correct components (which are stated in the code) and then their solution gets approved. These are handled in house with limited liability on the municipality.

In order to do something better we first have to admit that we might not be the experts that we think we are, a problem everyone has likely faced in their life. My grandfather had a good saying about this; "The dumbest person on this planet has something to teach the smartest, but he'll only listen if he has the wisdom to do so.". The big issue we faced was with politicians. They would rather give all the money to the public than spend a portion on experts to provide guidance. The reasoning is that the more money they gave out the more votes they could get. The general public and good contractors saw the energy evaluation service as invaluable. We gave unbiased advice to home owners and confirmed what knowledgeable contractors were telling clients. At the end of the day, funding got cut so the program ended. Still, it did have some minor flaws, but was the best system we could get in place.

 

[ICE]

This one is a doozy. The kid that met me said I was there for a lath inspection around a new service box. I said that I don't recall approving the service so I am surprised that lath has been installed. He showed me a job card upon which I signed for rough electrical. I also wrote "rough on roof".This is under a patio cover. Most of the back yard is patio cover....I'd guess it's between 6 and 8 hundred square feet. There's six ceiling fans.





The owner was there cleaning the granite counters. He was completely nonplussed when hearing "It can't be there". So much so that I figure he must know somebody.

The kid asked me "How does an electrician who's supposed to know the code do something this wrong". Oh what I wanted to say.....

Well it's four months later and they called for another inspection. They changed things up and now there is a sub-panel where the main was located.



The service has been moved to a 26" wide walkway.



The drop is about 3' above the neighbor's roof.



When I wrote the first correction about working clearance back in January the owner called and chewed me out. He said that Edison told him where to put the service so I have no say in the matter. He was plenty upset. Then someone from the solar company did the same thing only he was way more upset. I'm gonna get screamed at tomorrow for sure. Probably in person.

 

[ICE]

The label says that the main breaker can't exceed 200 amps.



On the right hand side of the same label is the panel rating of 225 amps.



Can anyone tell why the main for a 225 amp panel is only allowed to be 200 amp.