IEEE & UL & "Guerrillas" [RE-wrenches]

Thu May 2 20:50:53 PDT 2002

Jeff, that was one of the best rants I have read here--wow! I had no idea
how easy we have it here in NM--and this with the utility that disconnected
a 1999 intertied system with two 5548s when the UL kafuffle happened last
November.
I hope Richard publishes your post. I wish you well, brother.
Allan at Pos En

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Wolfe, Global Resources" <global at sover.net>
>
> It's not just the backyard folks who are being pushed to guerrilla status.
> We've got two systems right now, one 3 kW on a private school, and one 52
> kW on a state government building, in different states, that are being
held
> up purely for obstructionist reasons. Cases in point:
>
> 1.  Trace ST2500, installed in the state of NH. Thius inverter has been
> instaled in how many states, in how many utility jurisdicitons? But in NH,
> the ST must undergo another test, a test that requires the destruction of
> several units, to prove that when they are destroyed (through a simulated
> lightning strike) they fail properly. Seems prudent, and other states
> require this. But NH also requires that this test be completed when the
> inverter is not putting out any power at the time of the strike (0 power
> state). No other state rquires this. What do the NH utility folks, who
> pushed for this, know that no one else knows? (In fact, a friend of mine
> who is a local manager for a small segment of Nat Grid, opposed the rule,
> but NU (PSNH) pushed for it, and being the dominant utility, they won.
>
> Documentation, including a letter from UL stating that the 0 power test is
> functionally equivalent to a 50% power test (which has been completed) has
> been submitted to the NHPUC. No action. We started this in December 2001
> (Thought I'd write the year, in case I need to dig this email up in a
> couple years for documentation.) No, the PUC is not the utlity. But, they
> certainly are not really independent of them. Each week, Xantrex inquires
> and gets the answer that there should be an answer Friday. (Guess we need
> to ask "which Friday")
>
> This school, made up of fine law abiding citizens, may go guerrilla. Of
> course the whole thing is stupid. Its a 3 kW array. The building will
never
> let the power get to the meter. Of course, if there is a failure...
>
> 2.  We just finished installing a 52 kW PowerLight system in NY. Of
course,
> the inverter is not in yet (held up by UL, but I just got word it ships
> tomorrow ) and Niagra Mohawk (the local utility) just responded to the
> interconnection application with a 6" thick pile of paper, a request for a
> $3000 fee for "review" and a statement that they will meter the power WE
> produce and charge US 2.5 cents per kWh generated. (This is actually
> allowed in NY for systems over 50 kW, but ours is rated at 40 kW AC, and
> the inverter is only 45 kW, so the rule shouldn't apply, but they still
try
> to throw it at us, thinking we might not know better.)
>
> Of  course, the same building already had 15 kW of fuel cells tied into
the
> building with net metering (yes, the utility actually DID meter those, and
> the building PAID 2.5 cents/kwh for the net metered power). The building
> also has already paid over $5000 to the utility for the engineering study
> for the interconnection of the fuel cells. So what's the big difference
> with the PV? Also, since the Trace Tech 45 kW inverter has not been "type
> tested" for the state of NY, we need to install a separate relay system
> with a shunt trip device to duplicate the UL1741 grid tie equipment. Not
to
> worry though, we'll probably need the shunt trip breaker anyway, since the
> utility will probably require a disconnect switch at the main electrical
> service entrance, for the PV. Too bad we put the PV on the roof of a 6
> story building. Lots of copper coming through a completed building if they
> wont let us use the shunt trip.
>
> All this in a state where the Governor has declared that 10% of the
> electricity in state building will be provided through RE and efficiency
by
> 2005 (I think) and 20% by 2010 (I think). All this in a state where
NYSERDA
> funded over half the project. And this project is within several blocks of
> NYSERDA and the state capital.
>
> On a side note, Rochester (NY) Gas and Electric has a customer with an
> installation of several capstone turbines (which are allowed to
> interconnect in NY). RG&E charged $350 for the interconnection study, and
> did it quickly. They have been cautious, prudent, and non-obstructionist.
>
> Ok, enough detail, you get the picture. It really is the utilities that
are
> forcing the issue with guerrilla solar (what shall the customer with a 52
> kW(DC) system do, with all UL listed equipment and complete, stamped,
> enginering designs, if the utility will not reasonably allow
> interconnection? (Sure, we should have gotten the approval first. It's
> called, "Grant Deadlines".) Having constructed millions of square feet of
> buildings, working with utilities from ComEd (Chicago, ooooo so
regressive)
> to Boston, and NH (some great small ones) I've seen how utilities work.
> They are not easy to work with even in getting a new service for a large
> commercial. They have their ways. But they do get the job done, and they
> are predictable. This is NOT how many of them act with interconnection.
>
> Yes, we can work through the standards process, but really, who does
> control the standards process? Yes, we can be involved, but if my business
> card says "behomouth utility", people listen more than if it says "solar
> bozo". People want to trust people, and the utilities take advantage of
> that, and control the standards process through lies and half-truths and
> unfounded claims. Having been deeply involved in the creation of the net
> metering regulations for VT, I saw first hand how everything we said was
> discounted, because "obviously" we were just trying to get the least
> restrictive laws passed, whereas the utilities were "only concerned with
> public safety". The day before we finally got a hearing in front of the
> joint rules committee of the House and Senate, the Chair of the Public
> Service Board publically asked all utilities to show up at the hearing and
> show public support for the PSB position and proposed regs. Guess they got
> a few chits for it...
>
> Come on. Pull off the gloves. Sure, we need to work with the folks, but
> "work with" doesn't mean "expose body parts for flailing". We need to be
> aggressive on ALL fronts. The utilites are. Seen the newspaper adds in DC?
>
> Enough Rant, back to work.

- - - -
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
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
==^================================================================