System Performance Metering [RE-wrenches]

Fri Dec 17 13:12:14 PST 2004

<x-flowed>

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** Get Your Own Support-a-Cure Yellow Bracelet for $1.99 **   
Show your support for finding cures for both AIDS & Cancer. 
Get yours for just $1.99. This bracelet makes a difference.
http://click.topica.com/caacVlObz8Qcsbz9JC9a/Penn Media
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Bill and John and all,

While I  wholeheartedly agree that performance metering is essential 
to install in any system, tying that data to rebates and getting all 
that data to a central database and then disbursing those payments is 
another issue.  In the first round of rebates in Massachusetts they 
did just that and it's cumbersome.  After experiencing it - many of 
us at SEBANE -( Solar Energy Business Association of New England) 
argued against systems less than 10 KW being required to report 
performance in order to get the rebate.  And don't get me wrong, I 
actually do want to see some sort of incentive for performance but 
just how to do it is another question.  We install a lot of tracking 
systems and I would love to get credit for that extra 25-40% 
production!

In the first MA round they gave $5.00/watt - $3.50 up front and 
another $1.50 that you had to prove per KWH over 3 years.  Now that 
sounds great but don't underestimate the amount of paperwork and 
hassle that created - and barrier to sales.   Folks weren't psyched 
to learn they had to carry the money and receive incremental checks. 
And think of the staff time it takes at the State level.

After seeing the program work on the ground, my recommendation was to 
offer (or require) performance rebates above a certain size - perhaps 
4 or 5 KWs or maybe even 10KW so that you would leave out all the 
small residential systems.  In New England many systems go in at 
under 3 KW.  Many customers go for 1.2-2.4 KW.  1500s are really 
common.  Another approach would be performance standards as opposed 
to monitoring.

I contemplated writing up a performance standard system based on 
modifiers determined at the time of install with no need for 
subsequent monitoring and reporting for the residential systems.  So 
you would have a base rebate which you would modify with tilt, angle, 
and percent shading factors.  It would require some sort of % shading 
measurement standard equipment better than the Pathfinder as Bill 
pointed out - but that would be a great addition to our industry 
anyway (and a product I've long thought someone should produce) - to 
have a standardized way of verifiable shading percentage reduction. 
You could also have factors for tracking - for panel types, etc.  The 
application would get cumbersome but perhaps not as bad in the long 
run as reporting KWH for years and the CEC having to issue payments 
over time.

I'd love to see a reported actual data performance system that works 
and I can see the gathering of the data as easy enough but how to do 
the payments without hassling the state and the customer?.  MA did 
make it a honor system based on customer reporting - I think that 
could work if CEC had a central web reporting system that was really 
easy.  But a whole system of writing checks based on piddly KWHs from 
a 2 KW system over time seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. 
There must be a better way and  unless the day comes  when we have 
modem connected meters everywhere and the utilities process the 
rebates,  I really think there is merit in the performance standards 
approach for residential systems and perhaps even commercial systems.

Jeff

>
>John,
>
>I was directly behind the requirement for performance metering due to the
>fact that most systems installed in the first 3 years of the California
>program had no way to record energy production. I tried to get the CEC to
>adopt a standardized, conservative method of estimating annual energy
>production, but they opted for the installer to provide the estimate. The
>whole idea was predicated on the fact that we were not going to get a
>performance incentive any time soon because neither the CEC nor CalSEIA
>supported the idea at the time. CalSEIA has changed their tune and the CEC
>still talks of a "pilot program", but until a performance incentive is
>required, it will not happen here in California.
>
>My idea, back when the energy "crisis" was in full swing and everybody was
>lobbying for more rebate dollars, was to keep the rebate at the then $3/Watt
>amount and add a performance incentive of $0.15 to $0.20/kWh (similar to an
>increase of $1.50/Watt rebate increase). Everybody wanted the $4.50/Watt up
>front and I was summarily squashed by the masses running to the money. Alas
>we now sit with nearly 11,000 systems in the field and no real mechanism to
>get the data in to the state's data base. A CEC website for homeowners to
>enter their own performance data has been suggested, but nothing has been
>done about it. Homeowners who contribute to this type of a website would
>then be allowed to access data from other fellow system owners--this still
>should be done.
>
>My secret plan was that as these systems consistently underperform for those
>installers that do not know how to calculate annual energy production,
>customers would begin to react and force a greater level of competency in
>our industry. Good software exists to estimate energy production (the Clean
>Power Estimator on the CEC website is as good as any), but as we have said
>over and over, garbage in is garbage out with a computer program.
>
>The one area that hurt most in losing by standardized performance estimation
>argument is that there is no explicite requirement to test for shading. This
>is often the most significant element that reduces output and yet no
>computer programs to date do a very good job of estimating the issue. There
>is still no good alternative to a good, old fashion Solar Pathfinder
>analysis.
>
>Bill.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Raynes [mailto:john at raynes.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:08 AM
>To: RE-wrenches at topica.com
>Subject: System Performance Metering [RE-wrenches]
>
>
>
>
>Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Amazing Diet Patch
>The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
>http://click.topica.com/caacVmibz8QcsbaaVcJa/MyDietPatches
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This is directed primarily to the CA Wrenches:
>
>Is any systematic effort being made to record and tabulate the data that's
>available from the system performance meter that's required on grid tie
>systems?  Or are they just required in hopes that they will be looked at
>occasionally in order to verify optimal system performance?
>
>I know there's been a lot of discussion threads here about expected
>performance levels of grid tie PV systems, and how meaningful this type of
>data really is.  That's a whole 'nother topic.  I just want to know if
>there is any aspect of the CA program where data is regularly collected
>from at least some percentage of target residences.
>
>Any comments, with either a regional or state-wide perspective, are
>appreciated.  Or if you're in another state with a program where data
>collection is being done, I'd be interested in that, too.
>
>Thanks,
>John Raynes
>RE Solar
>Torrey, UT
>
>Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Claim your fully stuffed Christmas Stocking now
>http://click.topica.com/caacVmdbz8QcsbaaVcJf/PermissionData
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>- - - -
>To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com
>
>Archive of previous messages: http://lists.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/read
>
>List rules & etiquette: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquette.php
>
>Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/
>
>Hosted by Home Power magazine
>
>Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com
>
>Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Claim your fully stuffed Christmas Stocking now
>http://click.topica.com/caacVmdbz8Qcsa9hBZif/PermissionData
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>- - - -
>To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com
>
>Archive of previous messages: http://lists.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/read
>
>List rules & etiquette: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquette.php
>
>Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/
>
>Hosted by Home Power magazine
>
>Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Clearwater
Village Power Design Associates
Sustainable Energy & Water Solutions for Home & Village
http://www.villagepower.com
gosolar at villagepower.com

530-470-9166
877-SOLARVillage
877-765-2784
425 Nimrod St.
Nevada City, CA 95959
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim your fully stuffed Christmas Stocking now
http://click.topica.com/caacVmdbz8Qcsbz9JC9f/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List rules & etiquette: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquette.php

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

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

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------

</x-flowed>