Permits[RE-wrenches]

[Joel Davidson]

Bill,

The CEC only pays rebates for labor performed by licensed contractors.

A lesser incentive for owner or self-installed systems is discriminatory, fails
to meet the needs of PV as an emerging technology during the very early-adoptor
market stage and is tantamount to a subsidy for contractors to charge more for
some PV systems that could otherwise be installed at a lower price.

First, a lesser incentive discriminates against home and business owners with
the skills, experience and desire to install their own PV systems. Many PV early
adoptors are engineers, technicians and individuals who have the skills and
experience to do their own work. Many owners prefer to do their own work because
they have had bad experiences with contractors. Owners who install their own PV
systems have to comply with the same program rules and code requirements as
contractors, but often invest more for their systems because their labor costs
are not subsidized by the incentive. They should not be further discriminated
against with a lesser incentive.

Second, PV is like other not-yet-fully-developed or emerging technologies that
require active participation by the end-user which sometimes includes system
design and installation. PV is similar to other component-based systems like
entertainment systems and computers. Early adoptors often had to build their own
systems because they had more expertise than contractors. Had these skilled
“do-it-yourself” stereo and computer owners been discouraged and discriminated
against, many user-friendly innovations would not have evolved. Likewise, equal
incentives for self-installed PV systems will encourage diversity in design so
necessary for a technology to become more user-friendly and have broader appeal.

Third, a lower incentive to owner-installers is a self-serving contractor
subsidy. Contractors actively discourage the “do-it-yourselfer” because they
lose that business. Yet, contractors can and should compete with
owner-installers in a free marketplace. Contractors should not be given a 25%
greater incentive advantage over
owner-installers. This incentive advantage will not drive down prices as some
contractors will use it to charge customers as much as the market will bear.
Giving contractors a higher incentive will not help to achieve the ERP goal “to
reduce the net cost of on-site renewable energy systems to end use consumers.”

Finally, a lesser incentive to owners who install their own PV systems
discriminates against people exercising their fundamental right to build and
improve their own property and practice the self-reliance that attracted them to
PV in the first place.

Joel Davidson

Bill Brooks wrote:

> Joel and Matt,
>
> You are forgetting about a large loophole that many "owner-installers" are
> using.  There are a significant percentage of "owner installers" installing
> systems in California. However, only a small percentage of those are truly
> installing the systems themselves. Most are either hiring a licensed
> contract (fine), or equally likely hiring an unlicensed contractor or
> contractor with an inappropriate license.
>
> This situation happens because the homeowner pulls the permit for the
> "contractor" and therefore there is no accountability as with a licensed
> contractor. This is one of the reasons for the spread in the rebate amounts
> for "owner installers" and I think is an excellent step in the right
> direction. It's taken the CEC a few years to wake up to the fact that the
> more than 30% of the rebates that are "owner installs" have a large number
> of illegal contractors.
>
> How do you stop that problem. Just like you can't stop all bad installs, it
> is very difficult to stop illegal contractors. Supplying less rebate money
> is an excellent way to provide the right incentive.
>
> Eventually, I think it is completely appropriate for the CEC or NYSERDA or
> whoever has the gold to provide a higher buydown amount for companies that
> have taken the time, effort, and money to show that they have a high level
> of competency installing PV system. Is this mandatory--absolutely not.
> Anyone can elect to receive the lower buydown if they do not see the value
> in becoming certified. Is it cruel? Not if you're the one having to dispense
> the limited funds and want to get money in the hands of the most qualified
> people.
>
> We have to remind ourselves that rebate funds do not belong to the PV
> industry. They belong to the ratepayers of California--in California's case.
> We treat these funds like we deserve them because we are so good looking and
> on the side of good and that is only partially true.
>
> A lot of good folks were involved in getting rebate money to flow, but many
> of those folks are the same folks that are pushing for more certifications
> and controls to keep the money well spent.
>
> Bill

- - - -
To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com

Archive of previous messages: http://www.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/

List rules & etiquette: http://www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm

Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/index.html

Hosted by Home Power magazine

Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com

==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: michael.welch at homepower.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Qcs.bz9JC9.bWljaGFl
Or send an email to: RE-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===============================================================