RE: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

[Matt Lafferty]

All:

 

RE: Existing Inverters with integral meters and transition period eligibility.

 

I have not seen the "final" rev of the performance specification, so there might be something added since the last version I saw. Note to Ben: Are you gonna distribute the final version to the Working Group?  As a working group, we have long talked about the transition period once this specification is published and in effect. The general consensus of the committee has been that, from the date that Certified Inverter Integral Meters are required (currently slated for Jan 1, 2010), only Certified meters will be eligible.

 

Existing inverters that wish to have their integral meters considered eligible beyond that date would have to have the meter certified to this performance specification. Yes, that might be expensive, but that's been on the radar for several years now. And it's not like it's a requirement that they get existing equipment tested and certified. It's optional. It's always been optional for an inverter manufacturer to say he has an eligible meter. The alternative for systems that employ these inverters is to install a separate generation meter. Not a big deal for the vast majority of systems out there.

 

We really have to remember that the primary purpose of having a meter in the first place is for M&V purposes. An untested, uncertified meter is just that... Untested and uncertified. We also need to realize that it's gonna be 2010 shortly and it's time for the PV industry to get up to speed. Every other commercialized power generation type and class is required to have Revenue Grade metering. PV should have had it from Day 1. We did it as a matter of course on every single system installed in SMUD territory since 1993. I personally installed and oversaw hundreds of them. It's not a big deal and it's not a big expense. 1 meter socket, 2 pieces of flex conduit, 4 flex conduit fittings, some wire, some screws, and a $35 meter. Turn it on and watch it spin!

 

SB-1 cut a lot of slack to the PV industry by allowing +/- 5% accuracy in the first place... Something I'm not in favor of, frankly. Nevertheless, we've worked hard to put together a performance specification that should ensure accuracy and reliability in Certified Inverter Integral meters. Which is what the intent of SB-1 is all about. Fundamentally we're talking about integrity here. It is long past time for the "Wink, wink. Sure my inverter integral meter is +/- 5%" to be over and done with!

 

As with every program, there are deadlines for things. Remember ERP & Self-Gen at the end of June and end of December every year? Maybe we shoulda just let folks get the higher rebates even though they didn't get their applications in by the deadline. Sure, why not? It is my understanding that the current deadline for having Certified Inverter Integral Meters is January 1, 2010. Go with it. Nice and clean. There shouldn't be another column on the list that says "Eligible by Grace". Here, let me check that box! Where was that in SB-1? Isn't this requirement already a year or more late as it is? It's time to move the ball into the endzone and start working on new challenges.

 

RE: General Working Group Correspondence

 

For transparency purposes and to solicit input from other Working Group Members, I believe the Working Group as a whole should have been included on distribution. So I included them. For the record, the Working Group Email address is: onboard...@googlegroups.com  Only members are allowed to send emails to that address, so, if you want to be on the group distribution and aren't, let me know!

 

RE: Tim Treadwell & Katrina Perez

 

Hi. Did you want to be formally added to the Working Group email distribution or just to this particular conversation? Please let me know directly if you want to be added to the group distribution. If you are interested in the history of the working group, you can see much of it here: http://groups.google.com/group/onboardmeters_5

 

Thanks for your efforts everybody,

 

Matt Lafferty

gilli...@gmail.com

Skype @ Gilligone

+1 707 736-6212  V-Phone

Please note the new phone #

 

---

From: John Supp [mailto:john...@energycenter.org]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Baumstark, Pete; Dzvova, Mona Dee; Sterkel, Merideth "Molly"; Michael...@sce.com; Yip, Andrew; Ben.G...@sce.com
Cc: gilli...@gmail.com; jeff.ne...@bewengineering.com; mdar...@enphaseenergy.com
Subject: RE: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

Please include

Timothy....@energycenter.org

Katrin...@energycenter.org

I have already forwarded this to them.

John Supp Program Manager, California Solar Initiative (CSI) 8690 Balboa Ave, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92123-1502 858.244.7288 phone 858.244.1178 fax www.energycenter.org web

 

From: Baumstark, Pete [mailto:Pete.Ba...@us.kema.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Dzvova, Mona Dee; Sterkel, Merideth "Molly"; Michael...@sce.com; Yip, Andrew; John Supp; Ben.G...@sce.com
Cc: gilli...@gmail.com; jeff.ne...@bewengineering.com; mdar...@enphaseenergy.com
Subject: RE: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

 

I believe the “new inverter only” requirement came from Nick.  I think he just felt it would be problematic to require all inverter products on the list to re-test to the new standards.  Also the meter spec was primarily written with the idea of easily being performed in conjunction with UL1741 and IEEE 1547 certification and the supplemental Sandia testing.

Doing the meter testing only could end up being expensive for manufacturers.

 

Pete Baumstark, PE
Energy Engineer

KEMA Services, Inc.
492 Ninth Street
Suite 220
Oakland, CA 94607
T (510) 891-0446, x-4111
F (510) 891-0440
pete.ba...@us.kema.com
Please visit our website www.kema.com  

This message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, please return the message to its sender and delete it from your files.

---

From: Dzvova, Mona Dee [mailto:m...@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:02 PM
To: Sterkel, Merideth "Molly"; Michael...@sce.com; Yip, Andrew; John Supp; Ben.G...@sce.com
Cc: gilli...@gmail.com; jeff.ne...@bewengineering.com; Baumstark, Pete; mdar...@enphaseenergy.com
Subject: FW: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

 

Molly, et al --

 

I just spoke to Joseph Fleshman at CEC about an additional requirement for the 5% metering standards.  I would like the team's input on the CEC recommendation below.   I want to get back to CEC by Wednesday, no later than Thursday. 

 

I believe Joseph is right on point in that if we don't require "existing" CEC eligible listed inverters with intergral meters to meet this new standard, manufacturers could avoid meeting this requirement by using existing model numbers.  I am sure that there was a reason (s) the WG decided not to include existing equipment under this new standard.  Please submit your comments...

 

 

Mona

 

---

From: Patrick Saxton [mailto:psa...@energy.state.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Dzvova, Mona Dee
Cc: Joseph Fleshman
Subject: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

Hello Mona,

 

Currently the SB1 Guidelines only specify that newly CEC eligible listed inverters with integral meters must meet the 5% metering accuracy test requirements, with an effective date of 1 January 2010.

 

I would like to add to the SB1 Guidelines that existing CEC eligible listed inverters with integral meters must meet the 5% metering accuracy test requirements, with an effective date of 1 January 2011.

 

This would help keep the integrity of the eligible meter list and help to ensure some consistency among manufacturers.  Otherwise a manufacture could continue to produce inverters with self-certified 5% meters in perpetuity by using an existing eligible listed model number.

 

Would you please discuss this with your group and get back to me with agreement/questions/concerns/comments?

 

Thanks,

 

Pat

[Charlie Wilde]

Hi Matt:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'd like to remind working group
members that bulky manual-read socket meters are not the only
inexpensive revenue-grade meter option. Companies like mine make
small, electronic, independently-certified revenue grade kWh meters
for under $100.
Charlie Wilde
Integrated Metering Systems
800-488-3594

> From: John Supp [mailto:john...@energycenter.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: Baumstark, Pete; Dzvova, Mona Dee; Sterkel, Merideth "Molly";
> Michael...@sce.com; Yip, Andrew; Ben.G...@sce.com
> Cc: gilli...@gmail.com; jeff.ne...@bewengineering.com;
> mdar...@enphaseenergy.com
> Subject: RE: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements
>
>
>
> Please include
>
> Timothy....@energycenter.org
>
> Katrin...@energycenter.org
>
> I have already forwarded this to them.
>
>
> John Supp
> Program Manager, California Solar Initiative (CSI)
>
> 8690 Balboa Ave, Suite 100
> San Diego, CA 92123-1502
> 858.244.7288 phone
> 858.244.1178 fax

> <http://www.energycenter.org> www.energycenter.org web

> From: Dzvova, Mona Dee [mailto:m...@cpuc.ca.gov]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:02 PM
> To: Sterkel, Merideth "Molly"; Michael...@sce.com; Yip, Andrew; John
> Supp; Ben.G...@sce.com
> Cc: gilli...@gmail.com; jeff.ne...@bewengineering.com; Baumstark,
> Pete; mdar...@enphaseenergy.com
> Subject: FW: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements
>
>
>
> Molly, et al --
>
>
>
> I just spoke to Joseph Fleshman at CEC about an additional requirement for
> the 5% metering standards. I would like the team's input on the CEC
> recommendation below. I want to get back to CEC by Wednesday, no later
> than Thursday.
>
>
>
> I believe Joseph is right on point in that if we don't require "existing"
> CEC eligible listed inverters with intergral meters to meet this new
> standard, manufacturers could avoid meeting this requirement by using
> existing model numbers. I am sure that there was a reason (s) the WG
> decided not to include existing equipment under this new standard. Please
> submit your comments...
>
>
>
>
>
> Mona
>
>
>
> _____
>

[Matt Lafferty]

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for putting this out there. My point is not to say "use this meter
type/style/brand". Your note further helps to demonstrate that there are
perfectly acceptable alternatives available to end users that select
inverters which do not have Certified integral meters. I see no justifiable
purpose to extending the eligibility time period to any equipment that does
not pass the testing and receive certification.

$0.02001

Matt Lafferty
gilli...@gmail.com
Skype @ Gilligone
+1 707 736-6212 V-Phone
Please note the new phone #

[C. Ivan Cooper]

Folks,

With the testing requirements not actually finalized yet, no test
company ever having performed the test, no inverter ever having passed
it... I just don't know if we can reasonably expect existing inverters
to have finished this new testing & certification process six months
from now.

If they don't do so in time, as you said, this may not create much of a
direct problem for the inverter manufacturers (who aren't required to
comply and are selling their inverters into many other markets), as the
metering requirement is essentially placed on California-based solar
installation companies instead.

I agree that there are alternatives for installers to using the inverter
integral meters (though none as cost-effective), and I also agree that
it makes sense to require the same certification from existing inverters
as from new ones. However, it's possible that the January 2010 deadline
might need to be extended a bit in order to be practical.

-=Ivan

[Marv Dargatz]

I agree with Ivan.

Design, development, and certification of inverters is not an overnight process.  From the date of final adoption of the test requirements there could be a one year voluntary compliance period, followed by a one year allowance for already listed inverters.  So, effectively it is two years from the date of final adoption before all inverters on the list have 5% certified meters. 

It is not fair to put a firm date for mandatory compliance because any delay in final adoption puts undue schedule pressure on the manufacturers.  The mandatory compliance date should trigger off of the final adoption date.

See Ya!

Marv
Enphase Energy
707 763-4784 x7016

[Patrick Saxton]

Hello All,

 

The Energy Commission has essentially remained as an observer for the process of creating the 5% Metering Accuracy Testing Requirements.  The item that the Energy Commission is clearly responsible for is the SB1 Guidelines and the applicability of those Guidelines to equipment eligibility.  The Energy Commission has already determined that the current SB1 Guidelines only specify that newly listed eligible inverters with integral meters must meet the 5% metering accuracy test requirements, with an effective date of 1 January 2010.  Further, the Energy Commission’s interpretation of the current SB1 Guidelines is that the 5% Metering Accuracy Testing Requirements are not retroactive to the existing eligible listed inverters.

 

When the Energy Commission wanted the new photovoltaic module requirements to be retroactive to the existing eligible listed photovoltaic modules, this was clearly stated in the SB1 Guidelines.  No such language was included in the inverter and meter sections specifically because the Energy Commission did not want the integrated meter requirement to be applied retroactively on 1 January 2010.  In the future, the 5% Metering Accuracy Testing Requirements should be extended retroactively to the existing eligible listed inverters, but the 1 January 2010 date is not practical.  The actual date will be determined by the Energy Commission in coordination with the Public Utilities Commission and CSI Program Administrators.

 

 

Patrick Saxton
California Energy Commission

 

>>> Marv Dargatz <mdar...@enphaseenergy.com> 5/14/2009 3:06 PM >>>

[Matthias Heinze]

Hello Patrick,

I have lost the new contact information for Warren, could you please help?
I need to get a hold of him to follow up on the CALSEA performance efforts.

best regards

Matthias R. Heinze
Director Technology
TUV Rheinland of N.A.
12 Commerce Road
Newtown, CT 06470
Tel +1.925.2499123 x 122
Mobile +1.925.6993248
www.us.tuv.com
"Patrick Saxton" <psa...@energy.state.ca.us>

"Patrick Saxton" <psa...@energy.state.ca.us> Sent by: onboard...@googlegroups.com 05/14/2009 04:21 PM Please respond to onboard...@googlegroups.com

To <onboard...@googlegroups.com> cc Subject

Re: {CSI 5 Meters} RE: 5% Metering Accuracy Test Requirements

[Tony Dorta Intertek]

Dear Patrick Saxton, I have an urgen matter to discuss with you regarding a client of ours Veris Industries. It appears that an incomplete project may have been used by this company to obtain listing of their E50 meter under the 2% accuracy standard of ANSI C12.1.  I will like to discuss with you at your earliest convenience.  You can contact me at (949) 448-4100.

 

Regards,

Tony Dorta
Assistant Chief Engineer
Intertek

25791 Commercentre Dr.

Lake Forest, CA  92630
Phone: (949) 448-4100 Ext. 6841
Fax: (949) 448-4111
Email Address: tony....@intertek.com
Website: www.intertek-etlsemko.com

---

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient then please notify us by return email immediately. Should you have received this email in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

http://www.intertek.com