<html>
<body>
Here is the email that I sent to Matt Paiss in response to his contact
with me. <br><br>
Matt,<br><br>
Thanks for your email. I was in the midst of answering it yesterday when
my reply disappeared into cyberspace. Maybe it found its way to
your mailbox.<br><br>
We agree strongly that PV should be made as safe as possible, and that
firefighters need to be educated about these systems. The issue I
raise is that the new rule came through with no lead time, no NRTL listed
equipment available to satisfy the requirement, and no prescribed way to
implement it. Through the work of many, maybe including you, the
ruling fortunately was not far more damaging.<br><br>
There is no emergency requiring immediate implementation of a methodology
that will create so many problems for the PV industry. The dangers
of rooftop PV do not show up on the radar compared to even the use of
extension cords; much less traffic deaths and fatalities related to
mis-prescribed medicines; and diseases suffered by the general public,
caused by the extractive industries. <br><br>
This new code requirement presents a major new issue for the industry to
deal with. It is yet another block in the way of solar cost
effectiveness, and with it the success ratio of the industry. This
requirement has come with no set solution, and will continue to cause
considerable financial loss and stress until all the details are
eventually worked out. <br><br>
It is the fact that the PV industry has been wounded in this way that
makes it seem like an ALEC-supported operation. This assault works well
for the group’s agenda. ALEC is not a matter of secret agendas; it is
very visible, with an extremely well-orchestrated assault on the PV
industry.
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/22/largest-power-company-alec-solar/">
http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/22/largest-power-company-alec-solar/</a>
<br>
You may well be right that no committee members were lobbied. You were
there and I was not. Nevertheless, I would really like to know who
proposed the module level rapid disconnect requirement. Some may be
alarmed about PV rooftop systems for good reason, and / or they may have
been influenced to consider this relatively safe technology to be a
threat.<br><br>
Would it be possible for you to put me in contact with the people who
presented this idea, and those who argued passionately for it? If they
want to contact me, please forward my contact information to
them.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Drake <br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 02:11 PM 1/24/2014, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Wrenches, <br><br>
Matt Paiss is wanted to chime in here. He's a member of the Code-Making
Panel No. 4 Firefighter Safety Task Group, as well as SEIA's PV Industry
Forum. <br><br>
Since he can't post to the list, I am sharing his comments with the
group:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Drake,<br><br>
After reading your initial comments, I think you have nailed both the
intent of this code section as well as the benefits. But in reading
your second posting, I felt it important to write you. As one of
the representatives from the Fire Service that drafted 690.12, I can tell
you that while there is always room for improvement in language, the goal
is to have PV that can not start a fire. As I am not a
"wrench" I can not post to the list (feel free to share any of
my comments here if you wish), but I would like to chime in on this
conversation.<br><br>
Your assertion that ALECs are targeting the PV industry is not taking
place in this process. There are many hard-working
individuals from the PV industry, electrical inspectors, and the fire
service working together to keep PV safe and secure for many years to
come. I for one have both PV and thermal on my home.<br><br>
While you are correct that no fire fighter fatalities have resulted from
a PV system shock, the goal is to prevent the first. One problem is that
the PV industry has not adequately addressed the arc and ground fault
problems in the US. Simply put, many rooftop systems are not NEC
compliant; they can not detect and interrupt all faults. This has
unfortunately resulted in far too many fires. The many additions
& changes to sec 690 in the 2014 cycle will go far in achieving a
much safer system. <br><br>
The fire service is becoming increasingly aware, educated, and involved
in the code process for PV safety. It should be clear that the goal
for all parties is a safe electrical product. There is no secret
agenda to pull the rug out from under solar. To those that are concerned
with the imbedded cost increases, please take a longer view than your
current FY. The systems that fire fighters respond to may be many
years old, but in reality most of the fires have occurred on new
systems. We will respond to older systems over time, and some
buildings will be lost due to concern over the inability to isolate power
down to a safe level. As I teach firefighters about electrical
safety, many express both an interest in PV as well as concern that it
should be possible to shut a system down in the event of an emergency
either manually, or as a result of a fault.<br><br>
Thank you,<br>
Matt<br><br>
<b>CA Matthew Paiss</b>, E19B<br>
Bureau of Field Operations<br>
San Jose Fire Department<br>
1661 Senter Rd<br>
San Jose, CA 95113<br>
(831) 566-3057 c</blockquote><br>
BTW: the stakeholders who developed the consensus language in 690.12 are
listed in the NEC 2014 Report on Comments:<br><br>
This comment is the result of a consensus process established among three
groups of stakeholders: 1) CMP4 Firefighter SafetyTask Group; 2) SEIA
Codes and Standards Working Group; and 3) PV Industry Forum. Participants
in these groups included the following individuals:<br><br>
CMP4 Firefighter Safety Task Group<br>
1. Ward Bower, CMP4 representing SEIA<br>
2. Bill Brooks, CMP4 representing SEIA and Chair of Task Group<br>
3. Bob Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts<br>
4. Mark Earley, Secretary, NFPA<br>
5. Bob James, UL<br>
6. Matt Paiss, City of San Jose Fire Department<br>
7. Jim Rogers, CMP4 representing IAEI<br>
8. Todd Stafford, CMP4 representing IBEW<br>
9. Ronnie Toomer, Chair of CMP4<br>
10. Peter Willse, Global Asset Protection Services<br><br>
SEIA Codes and Standards Working Group<br>
1. Mark Albers, SunPower<br>
2. Mark Baldassari, Enphase Energy<br>
3. Ward Bower, SEIA<br>
4. Bill Brooks, Brooks Engineering/SEIA<br>
5. Joe Cain, Chair of SEIA Codes and Standards Working Group<br>
6. Keith Davidson, SunTech<br>
7. Darrel Higgs, Dow Solar<br>
8. Lee Kraemer, First Solar<br>
9. Carl Lenox, SunPower<br>
10. Charles Luebke, Eaton<br>
11. Martin Mesmer, E.ON<br>
12. Steve Pisklak, Dow Solar13. Robert Rynar, First Solar<br>
14. Michael Schenck, First Solar<br>
15. John Smirnow, SEIA<br>
16. Kris VanDerzee, First Solar<br>
17. Leo Wu, SolarCity<br>
18. Tilak Gopalarathnam, REFUsol Incorporated<br><br>
PV Industry Forum<br>
1. Mark Albers, SunPower<br>
2. Greg Ball, DNV<br>
3. Bill Brooks, Brooks Engineering, lead for 690.12<br>
4. Mark Baldassari, Enphase Energy<br>
5. Ward Bower, SEIA<br>
6. Michael Coddington, NREL<br>
7. Marv Dargatz, SolarEdge<br>
8. Chris Flueckiger. UL<br>
9. Joerg Grosshennig, SMA<br>
10. Darrel Higgs, Dow Solar<br>
11. Dan Lepinski, Exeltech<br>
12. Carl Lenox, SunPower<br>
13. Charles Luebke, Eaton<br>
14. Matt Paiss, City of San Jose Fire Department<br>
15. Steve Pisklak, Dow Solar<br>
16. Jim Rogers, Town of Oak Bluffs<br>
17. Jon Sharp, Ampt<br>
18. Bhima Sheridan, SolarCity<br>
19. John Smirnow, SEIA<br>
20. Holly Thomas, U.S. Dept. of Energy<br>
21. Phil Undercuffler, Outback Power<br>
22. John Wiles, NMSU, Secretary of PV Industry Forum<br>
23. Leo Wu, SolarCity<br>
24. Tim Zgonena, UL<br><br>
<br>
On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM,
<a href="mailto:re-wrenches-request@lists.re-wrenches.org">
re-wrenches-request@lists.re-wrenches.org</a> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>From: </b>Drake
<<a href="mailto:drake.chamberlin@redwoodalliance.org">
drake.chamberlin@redwoodalliance.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown<br>
<dd>Date: </b>January 22, 2014 2:16:18 PM CST<br>
<dd>To: </b>RE-wrenches
<<a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>><br>
<dd>Reply-To: </b>RE-wrenches
<<a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>David,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>My sincere thanks to all of you who worked to keep the module level
disconnect requirement out of the 2014 code cycle. That ruling would have
amounted to a knockout punch for string and central inverters on
buildings. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>What was the driving force behind this push for immediate module
level disconnection? There has clearly not</u> been a rash of firefighter
deaths due to PV systems. Although PV needs to continue evolving safety
standards that take into account the concerns of firefighters, there is
no crisis that would justify thwarting one of the few growing sectors of
our economy. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The PV track record has been amazingly good. So far, I've found no
accounts of solar related firefighter deaths or injuries. The NFPA
statistics show that the highest cause of firefighter death is heart
attack.
<a href="http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012">
http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012</a>
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>This push for crippling regulation bears the earmark of ALEC’s
extensive and effective war on solar. As you can read in the following
links, the massively funded, Koch brothers-linked ALEC is lobbying
heavily, on every level, to derail solar. All who are associated with the
solar industry need to be aware of this powerful lobbying campaign. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy">
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy</a>
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/alec_freeriders_with_solar_panels_must_pay_for_robbing_the_system/%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/alec_freeriders_with_solar_panels_must_pay_for_robbing_the_system/
</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.html">
http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.html</a>
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Is there any way that the solar community can be alerted when threats
to our industry are being put before the NEC? Although few contractors
have the time or money to walk away from their businesses and attend code
writing committees, a substantial number might have the time to make
phone calls and send letters or emails to code writers. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The solar industry needs a strong lobby of its own. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Drake <br><br>
</dl> </blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
List sponsored by Home Power magazine<br><br>
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org<br><br>
Change email address & settings:<br>
<a href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a>
<br><br>
List-Archive:
<a href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a><br>
<br>
List rules & etiquette:<br>
<a href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm" eudora="autourl">
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a><br><br>
Check out participant bios:<br>
<a href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.members.re-wrenches.org</a></blockquote></body>
</html>