[RE-wrenches] Utility External Disconnect Switch

[Joel Davidson]

Hello Dan,

A lot of wrenches are new to the grid-connect business so a reality check 
and a bit of history is in order. Realty: almost all U.S. electric utilities 
and many utility employees are opposed to privately owned, net-metered 
distributed generation. History: here is an example of an egregious use of 
the UEDS.

On June 1, 2002, I posted:

There's been a lot of discussion about the locking AC disconnect switch
between a homeowner or business owner's PV system and the utility
company. My PV system does not have a locking disconnect because
Southern California Edison (SCE) management could plainly see that a
well-designed PV system had at least two disconnect switches, the
service panel backfeed load circuit breaker and the main circuit
breaker. SCE management decided that field workers could pull the meter
if the PV system had to be disconnected.

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) management and many
other utility company managers decided, or were told by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) labor union, that
a locking disconnect switch is necessary for field worker safety. The PV
industry always emphasizes safety and generally supports the use of the
locking disconnect even though it is often redundant and adds to PV
system cost.

LADWP IBEW has a new use for the PV system locking disconnect switch.
IBEW union workers have turned off and locked out private PV systems and
are using the lockout as a labor contract negotiation issue. On April
25, 2002, LADWP management notified utility customers that their private
PV system was temporarily disconnected in order to insure the safety of
field workers. The lockout has delayed projects, caused PV businesses to
lose income, put an unwarranted shadow of doubt and fear in customers'
minds and undermines decades of PV industry work providing safe solar
power systems.

Turning people's solar power systems off is anti-consumer and does not
build support for the union cause. It is only a matter of time before
news reporters tell the world that the IBEW has switched off the sun.
-----

On August 18, 2002, wrench Graham Owen, owner of Go Solar, posted this 
announcement:

The LADWP four-month PV lockout has ended and Department personnel on
8/15/02 removed the locks.  Hooray!!

There is a new 5 step inspection process, one of which includes making
an appointment with a Department Electric Service Representative to
establish where the AC disconnect will be located, this is prior to the
system installation.  This may sound like a waste of valuable contractor
time, but the way I see it, I am happy to be installing systems again in
my back-yard which means less drive time, substantially lower permit
fee's, much less hassle with non-LA Building and Safety Departments and
of course the higher financial incentive for my customers.  I am very
pleased this unfortunate event has passed.

Now I feel a need to quickly rant about what I perceive as what's really
going on in LA.

Last year my company installed the first system under the Green LA Solar
Power Program.  Numerous times in the past year I had a feeling that
LADWP didn't really want to achieve their publicly stated goal of
100,000 solar roof tops by 2005.  There have been constant glitches and
delays, which have kept the pace of installations at a lower level than
was achievable. There are only about 300 residential systems installed
so far.

Since deregulation of electricity in California 2.85% of ratepayers
utility bills are diverted into a Public Benefit Trust fund for
environmentally friendly projects, which benefit the public.  LADWP
lobbied to get these funds under their control from the City of Los
Angeles for the Green L.A. Program.  A predetermined amount was set
aside for a solar energy incentive.  The problem is the wording in the
program.  "Buydown funds not spent each year may be used for Department
solar photovoltaic projects". That is LADWP gets the money for their own
use.

It appears that LADWP wants to use as much of these funds for their own
projects as possible.  I believe the reasoning behind this decision is
that the Department will not have to credit ratepayers for solar
generated electricity.  In effect they get the ratepayers to subsidize
solar power for their grid without having to deduct the amount generated
from incoming revenue.

The problem with this scheme, it costs the Department about $17 a watt
for union prevailing wage installations, compared to $9 per watt average
non-union contractor cost.

I believe the solar subsidies were initiated for environmental reasons,
period.  More solar panels can be installed by non-union labor than can
be installed by union labor for each block of funding.  This is
something politicians should be able to comprehend and hopefully future
renewable energy subsidy programs will not have loosely worded documents
with obvious conflicts of interest.

Sizable contractors, which utilize the skilled labor of union
electricians, have a place in large commercial PV system installations
where increased labor costs are offset by lower material costs resulting
from bulk purchasing.  When I see the labor union interests flow over
into the residential market I see storm clouds on the horizon.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Fink" <danbob at hughes.net>
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Utility External Disconnect Switch


> Hello Joel --
>
> Well, you can be assured that both NREL and IREC are on your side. They 
> were very convincing about dropping UEDS requirements at this seminar. 
> Funny how utilities can require UEDSs, but none of them have the 
> procedures, personnel or infrastructure to actually *use* them.
>
> Imagine a 'green neighborhood' with PV on each of four dozen homes. Figure 
> at least 10 minutes each for the utility to locate and tag / lock out each 
> UEDS...and the same to re-commission them after the incident. And how many 
> utility trucks carry 4 dozen locks?
>
> I won't go into any more UEDS issues here, but I will be writing about 
> them soon and publish the link here on the list.
>
> DAN FINK
>
>
>
> Joel Davidson wrote:
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Many of us have worked hard to eliminate the UEDS requirement. 
>> Unfortunately, each utility and building & planning jurisdiction will 
>> have to be convinced by local contractors. Some will have to be 
>> re-convinced when the next authority gets into power. Please, someone 
>> tell me that I am wrong.
>>
>> Joel Davidson