[RE-wrenches] Installer's grant

Tue Sep 1 06:46:36 PDT 2009

Travis,

I know that the original argument had to do with installers wanting to
install on their own facility. I don't know why that would be a conflict at
all. That should always be encouraged. The issue was related to opening the
door to "self-installation" by homeowners, not contractors. This is where
the problem lies. Since no contractor is on record for the warranty, there
should be a lower rebate for that type of installation. If the contractor is
providing the warranty for their own system, I agree that there is no
incentive to let the system fail.

Throwing out a lower rebate for "self-installers" just encourages fraudulent
contracting. Address the issue by allowing all contractor installations at
the full rebate amount, and all homeowner installs at the reduced amount. It
seems very simple to me.

Bill.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Travis
Creswell
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:19 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant

Bill,

It's obvious you feel pretty strongly about this and you have always made a
lot of sense over the years.  But I'm not seeing your side completely.  The
business owner still has some costs and risks associated with warranting
their own system.  If they are troubleshooting/removing/replacing components
they either aren't getting paid themselves or they are paying their own
employees to do the work.  What about the module manufacturer that tanks
within the warranty period leaving installer holding the bag on bad modules?
It doesn't matter if they are on his (or her) roof or not.  I would agree
that it's easier this less expensive to support the warranty on your own
gear but it's certainly not free.  Perhaps the reduced credit is fair but
it's not accurate to say the installer has no costs associated with warranty
of their own system.

Best,

Travis Creswell

Ozark Energy Services

  _____  

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:57 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant

Roger, 

Why would a legitimate contractor argue against this reduced incentive (it
is not a penalty at all)? This is simply acknowledging the fact that
operating a business and providing a long-term system warranty costs money
that a self-installer does not have to carry. This actually came from a
strong recommendation I made to the California Energy Commission since early
in the rebate program over 30% of installations were "self-installed" which
was a bunch of BS. These were black market contractors who did not want to
carry a system warranty or did not have the credentials to install the
system.

Once we installed the slightly lower rebate cleaned up most of the black
market contracting and the number of self-installed systems went to the real
number of less than 5%.

Arguing against the lower rebate was a mistake that you are going to regret.
It's helpful to learn from history before repeating it.

Bill.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of roger dixon
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:33 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant

Try the DSIRE website, http://www.dsireusa.org/.  It lists both state and
federal incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.  

Up until this year, NJ would penalize a "self install", reducing the rebate
amount by 15%.  We argued against that and they have now removed that
penalty.

Roger Dixon

Certified Wind Site Assessor

Distributor & Installer of Solar & Wind Energy Systems 

Skylands Renewable Energy, LLC

908.337.2057 cell

908.730.6474 fax

roger.dixon at skylandsre.com

www.skylandsre.com

SkylandsRenewD66bR03dP01ZL

Note: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may
be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is
intended only for the use of the addressee(s).  It is the property of the
sender of this e-mail.  If you receive this e-mail in error, do not review,
disseminate, or copy it.  Unauthorized use, disclosure, or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and
all copies thereof, including all attachments.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Drake
Chamberlin
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:50 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant

Hello Wrenches,

I wanted to see how other states are handling solar grants / rebates on the
homes of installers.  In Ohio there is a grant program that gives $3.00 /
Watt toward residential systems.  Eligible installers must be approved by
the state, and funds are allotted to the installer.  

In this years program, there is a "conflict of interest" clause which says
that installers, employees of installers and subcontractors of installers
are not eligible for any grant funding from the grant received by the
installer.   It is likely that installers can hire their competition to do
installations.

Do other states have this conflict of interest clause?

Thanks, 

Drake Chamberlin
Athens Electric
OH License 44810
CO License 3773
NABCEP TM  Certified PV Installer 
Office - 740-448-7328
Mobile - 740-856-9648 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20090901/7ad1f4a5/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20090901/7ad1f4a5/attachment-0003.jpg>