# Solar



## ICE

Solar contractors can be difficult to work with.  The company will have a C-10 or B license so they will install a new service along with the solar equipment.  I wish that they wouldn't.


----------



## pyrguy

Is that insulation under the screws?!?!?!?!?!

We had one solar contractor install the DC Disconnect with one of the two DC supply wires running through the box right next to the disconnect with the other going into one side of the disconnect at the top, coming out of the bottom  then back into the disconnect on the other side and out the top.


----------



## ICE

pyrguy said:
			
		

> Is that insulation under the screws?!?!?!?!?!We had one solar contractor install the DC Disconnect with one of the two DC supply wires running through the box right next to the disconnect with the other going into one side of the disconnect at the top, coming out of the bottom  then back into the disconnect on the other side and out the top.


DC disconnects have a particular way to configure the wires.  I takes a diagram and if the installer doesn't have one it can be found on-line.  I heard from a manufacture today and was told that the diagram will be inside every disconnect in the near future.


----------



## ICE

The panel-board is Zinsco.  At the first inspection, the solar circuit breaker that had been added was a third party breaker with a ETL sticker and made in China.  The breakers were 40 amp and the plans specified 30 amp.

At this inspection, the claim is that the breakers are re-manufactured, 30 amp Zinsco breakers. I asked the technician to remove the breakers so that I can see the markings. I need documentation and a listing that allows back feeding these breakers.  I didn't hold the door for him because he was working it hot.  The kid couldn't remove the breakers.


----------



## ICE

The roof is aluminum and the solar installers beat the Hell out of it.  The roof can't be seen from the ground, so the HO is unaware of the damage.  This is one case where I'm thankful that quality control isn't my bag.


----------



## 97catintenn

You post the greatest...no, the funniest..no that's not it...you post the most interesting photos!!


----------



## ICE

Thanks.....I get the feeling that you are easy to entertain.....me too






The owner's wife is not happy with anyone that's involved. She is especially upset with me.


----------



## gfretwell

You could run over those ficus with a bush hog and they would be back next year.


----------



## ICE

It's kinda hard to see but the lugs are mounted with self tapping sheet metal screws.


----------



## pyrguy

They try that a lot here. They, the fittings, have specific bolts, washers, nuts, and torque requirements.


----------



## gfretwell

Most AHJs here want stainless "through bolting" with a nut on the back when they bond aluminum screen cages. I bet they would want to see that on a solar rack too.

The dissimilar metal thing you get in tropical salt air, with thread forming screws, tends to show up as a white fuzzball where the screw is supposed to be.


----------



## ICE

This is attached to a solar water heating system.  It is labeled for indoor use only.  The plumbing contractor insists that the metal enclosure renders this to be "indoors".  I told him that at best, this is a damp location.  So far, the contractor will not agree.  He is adamant that he has done this hundreds of times and I am the first to challenge him.


----------



## Rio

Regarding the Taco pump if, and it's a big if, they keep the door on the water heater shed I would think the pilot light and heat generated by the water heater would keep the inside of the shed dry enough that the dampness shouldn't be an issue;  I will say the whole setup looks pretty Micky Mouse.

P.S.  The installer working on the panel without pulling the meter is asking for it and will end up being a statistic if he keeps doing stuff like that.


----------



## ICE

Solar panels are more efficient in a cold condition.


----------



## ICE




----------



## ICE

ICE said:
			
		

> Solar panels are more efficient in a cold condition.


They fixed it.





11:45 AM

The shaded panel is dead and has been dead since sunrise.  The panel next to it may have been dead for the first half of the morning.  After lunch, the same will happen to the panels on the other side of the vent.  The system has two strings so the inverter might ignore the string that is shaded.

This is a customer owned system so the company doesn't care if it operates at 50%.

There isn't a code violation so apparently I don't care either.









When the solar industry first started rolling along, I figured that the electricians would get in the game.

Not many did.

The government did.

So naturally suits showed up with mouths open wide.

Initially there were two players.

Those two birthed sport coats looking to become suits.

Well none of them are electricians.

They don't hire electricians.

Recently I asked a man that was installing solar equipment what he did for a living prior to entering the solar field.

He said that his previous career was with a school district as an administrator.

The CSLB created a C-46 classification.

That is a Solar Contractor.

These companies aren't contractors.

That's like calling the kids at Jiff-Lube mechanics.

Be careful about allowing these contractors to perform work beyond the scope of a solar system.

An electric service upgrade is not part of a solar system.


----------



## gfretwell

How is that big pecker standing up there going to hold up in the wind?

The palm trees indicate to me that the top of the flue is going to be solid waste in the hurricane cleanup.


----------



## ICE

gfretwell said:
			
		

> How is that big pecker standing up there going to hold up in the wind?The palm trees indicate to me that the top of the flue is going to be solid waste in the hurricane cleanup.


----------



## Rio

ICE said:
			
		

> They fixed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 11:45 AM
> 
> The shaded panel is dead and has been dead since sunrise.  The panel next to it may have been dead for the first half of the morning.  After lunch, the same will happen to the panels on the other side of the vent.  The system has two strings so the inverter might ignore the string that is shaded.
> 
> This is a customer owned system so the company doesn't care if it operates at 50%.
> 
> There isn't a code violation so apparently I don't care either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that flue is throwing enough shade to disable the panel.


----------



## Wayne

Re: Solar

I've worked with solar manufactures before for a potential commercial project and they wanted light poles removed because they say shading diminishes or completely knocks out a panel. I'm not sure but they were adamant about it.


----------



## ICE

Shading on solarcal solar works


----------



## Rio

ICE said:
			
		

> Shading on solarcal solar works


Very informative and illuminating.  I had no idea that there were such large effects with small amounts of shading.  Thanks Ice,

Rio


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> *Shade and Power: The Multiplier Effect* Why does shading cause  such dramatic power loss? The answer lies in the way cells are connected  within solar panels and the performance optimization, done by the  inverter.  Solar panels are made of cells connected in series. Most  panels have 60 or 72 cells built in. Each panel connects in series,  creating an array. Arrays connect in parallel strings, feeding DC  current into the inverter, which then converts DC to grid-quality AC,  optimizing the PV arrays’ power generation through maximum power point  tracking (MPPT).
> 
> 
> 
> This Solar array is most likely does not generate any power at this time.
> 
> To prevent the string failing when one cell  underperforms — like Christmas tree lights connected in series — PV  panels equipped with bypass diodes. The diodes re-route the current  around the underperforming cells. The catch is that rerouting the  current not only loses  the potential energy from these cells, but also  lowers the entire string’s voltage. This leaves the inverter with a  dilemma: optimize the voltage for the underperforming string or maximize  the energy harvest from the unaffected strings. Usually,  the inverter  chooses the former, causing the energy harvest of the impaired string to  drop to near zero.
> ​


I'm sure there is good reason but why can't they connect them in parrallel instead of series?


----------



## gfretwell

If they were in parallel you would have huge currents to deal with.


----------



## ICE

A C-46 Solar Contractor installed this to power an A/C condenser.  Of course, they immediately pulled out black tape.... they are proud of being prepared.


----------



## ICE

A correction was written that stated "WEEB clips are not allowed".  This is what I was presented with as a replacement.





This panel is a center feed and had a 200 amp main with 200 amp bus.  Since a 20% increase is not possible with a center feed panel, a load calculation was performed and it was determined that the load is 150.5 amps.  The 200 amp main has been replaced with a 150 amp main.





The meter on the left is for the back house.

It appears to be used.


----------



## ICE

Doing their best.


----------



## TheCommish

wet location panel cover? Well they  stucco over everything out wet that is not moving?


----------



## Mac

What are ligths? Some wild west thing?


----------



## cda

So how much money did you save

Sorry not residental

11-Alarm Fire Guts Dietz & Watson Warehouse | NBC 10 Philadelphia


----------



## Fort

Looks like the roofers on that last one with the chimney went with the extended coverage installation...starting the lap a couple inches up to save shingles...


----------



## Dennis

conarb said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is good reason but why can't they connect them in parallel instead of series?


  Actually solar panels can be connected in parallel but it can get expensive to maximize the output.  As I understand it if the units are parallel then there may be a problem since not all panels will put out the same exact voltageSuppose one unit produces 45V (DC) and another only 40V due to shading or whatever.  The 40V unit would virtually be ignored so it would limit its ability however if each array had its own inverter than it would maximize the current.  This, of course,  would be very expensive.

Each panel can produce somewhere between 200-300 watts and about 45V (DC)


----------



## ICE

I have been told that there are inverters that mitigate the effect of shading.  If the modules aren't all oriented the same, the effect is the same as shading.


----------



## Wayne

Re: Solar

That's a fancy screw driver.


----------



## ICE

Another new solar installation where they got creative with lay-in lugs.


----------



## ICE

This is located outdoors.  It is a computer that talks to the solar company.  They leave it in the enclosure.


----------



## CaseyFlores

ICE said:
			
		

> Solar contractors can be difficult to work with.  The company will have a C-10 or B license so they will install a new service along with the solar equipment.  I wish that they wouldn't.


Yes it is hard to work with these contractors.. Even I worked with one contractor for 6 months and those were horrible days of my life


----------



## ICE




----------



## steveray

That's a handsome crimp you have there.....


----------



## ICE




----------



## ICE

They think that they can put whatever they want in this box because it is 3R.





There is a receptacle that has no equipment ground.





Another panel upgrade done by a solar contractor.  The panel is Siemens.  I don't think that any of the breakers are Siemens.  The hole in the wall behind the cabinet is the fourth one done that way this week.


----------



## ICE

https://flic.kr/p/o4VrSf  [/URL]

These are Ilsco lugs.  There is no way to follow the Ilsco installation instructions and use this hole.  The hole is designated by the manufacturer as appropriate for mounting hardware to ground the module.  

https://www.flickr.com/people//

 

Can anyone tell me what hardware is listed to standard 2703 for grounding these modules at that hole?


----------



## McShan

Aren't the panels supposed to be 18 inches away from the valley?


----------



## steveray

Yes...that is a cleanout directly over the new panel......


----------



## ICE

https://flic.kr/p/o6PXTe [/URL]

Does anyone know if this 3R switch, laying on it's back, on a roof is a problem.

Update:  Eaton says this is okay.


----------



## ICE

McShan said:
			
		

> Aren't the panels supposed to be 18 inches away from the valley?


That is the usual case.  However, the fire dept allows different strokes for different folks.  As long as there are two open sides, the fire dept. seems to go along with it.  The 3' around the edges bothers me, especially on a second story.  Sometimes it is mostly overhang and 3' with a 25' drop is not the best situation.


----------



## ICE

Solar contractor did a service upgrade.  Got a short list of corrections.  Called my office manager and complained that I am "mean to them...but don't tell him that we called because he is vindictive"


----------



## Darren Emery

McShan said:
			
		

> Aren't the panels supposed to be 18 inches away from the valley?


Is there a code reference for this?  We're just starting to see PV panels around here, and we are trying our best to get up to speed on all requirements.


----------



## steveray

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Is there a code reference for this?  We're just starting to see PV panels around here, and we are trying our best to get up to speed on all requirements.


The california fire guys wrote that for FF to get around on a roof...not sure how many other places use their guidelines....


----------



## Chad Pasquini

Our local fire department will do a site visit prier to the pv install and go over the plans with installers, then give us the thumbs up, works out nicely


----------



## ICE

Chad Pasquini said:
			
		

> Our local fire department will do a site visit prier to the pv install and go over the plans with installers, then give us the thumbs up, works out nicely


We have way too much of it for that.


----------



## Chad Pasquini

yea I am sure of that ice, we have two consistent installers and every once in while a large company will come in and do an apartment complex, but the two local companies are on the ball most of the time as they will meet with fire department a couple of months ahead of scheduled job.


----------



## conarb

steveray said:
			
		

> The california fire guys wrote that for FF to get around on a roof...not sure how many other places use their guidelines....


Is this in the code yet?


----------



## Chad Pasquini

Conarb, I can't quote the actual code section but I know the State Fire Marshall's Office came out with setbacks from ridge and eaves.


----------



## georgia plans exam

The 2012 I.F.C. addresses this in Section 605.11. Section 605.11.3.2.3 requires 18" clearance to the valley. I don't see a reference to the IFC in the IRC but, Section 3111.1 of the IBC references the IFC so, it is enforceable here for commercial buildings.   GPE


----------



## conarb

The reason I ask is the Piedmont fire:



			
				KTVU said:
			
		

> Piedmont Fire Capt. Dave Swan told KTVU Saturday that solar-powered  systems can pose a threat to firefighters even if crews shut off the  flow of power from PG&E and the panels.“We know that even if  we find the switch, to shut off the photo-voltaic flow into the house  that there's still energy all the way from the panels down to the  switch,” said Swan.
> 
> As of Saturday, the State of California was  considering new building codes and firefighters say they're hoping those  new codes will reflect their concerns about solar power installation.
> 
> “We  have great hopes that it will do two things: it'll make it easier for  people to safely install photo-voltaics so we can see more friendly  energy being used, and it will make it safer for firefighters to work as  well,” said Swan
> 
> .
> 
> Fire officials told KTVU that until the  building codes catch up, the key for consumers considering solar was to  find reputable installers and check with their city's fire department  for their recommendations.¹


I served on the Design Review Commission in Piedmont 35 years ago, there are many beautiful mansions in Piedmont, no way defacing a home with solar panels would have gotten by me, of course California probably has a law that youi can't stop them  now.  The are already making widows as solar panels in Germany, if someone really wants them that's what they should do.

¹ http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/solar-panels-proving-be-dangerous-firefighters/nZ9w4/


----------



## mark handler

steveray said:
			
		

> The california fire guys wrote that for FF to get around on a roof...not sure how many other places use their guidelines....


*OLD* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of FORESTRY and FIRE PROTECTION

OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL

SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATION GUIDELINE

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/reports/solarphotovoltaicguideline.pdf

This is more up to date:

California Solar Permitting Guidebook

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Solar_Permitting_Guidebook.pdf


----------



## conarb

Thanks Mark, I've saved it in my 2013 code folder.

A quick reading indicates that these guidelines are not in the codes, but local AHJs are encouraged to adopt them as local ordinances.  Looking at just a few of the guidelines:





			
				Solar Permitting Guidebook said:
			
		

> *4. Roof drainage:* Roof-mounted solar PV systems shall not cause excessive sagging of the roof that results in water ponding. They shall also not block or impede drainage flows to roof drains and scuppers. (CBC Section 1611, CRC Section R903.4)
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Roof penetrations:*
> 
> All roof penetrations shall be sealed using approved methods and products to prevent water leakage. Such methods include but not limited to caulking, roof jacks, and sheet metal flashing. (CBC Section 1503.2, CRC Section R903.2)
> 
> 
> 
> *6. Skylights:*
> 
> Solar PV panels shall maintain a minimum clearance around the perimeter of skylights as not to interfere with the function of the skylight, as determined by the enforcing agency. (CBC Section 1205, CRC Section R303)
> 
> 
> 
> *7. Plumbing vent, mechanical equipment, and mechanical exhaust terminations:*
> 
> Solar PV panels shall not obstruct or interfere with the function of plumbing vents or mechanical equipment. (CPC Sections 901.1 & 906, CMC Section 304)
> 
> 
> 
> *8. Guard rails: *
> 
> 
> 
> When required by the enforcing agency, guard rails may apply to solar PV systems. (CBC1013.5).
> 
> 
> 
> *9. Disabled access requirement.*


From reading this I take it that an AHJ could require guardrails around solar panels, and sufficient space around the panels for disabled access, I also read it as requiring local AHJs to either develop prescriptive engineering requirements or require engineering.


----------



## mark handler

As a document, the guidelines are not code. but most sections are in other portions of the CCR T24, including the energy and green codes


----------



## mark handler

Fire Operations For Photovoltaic Emergencies

CAL FIRE –Office of the State Fire Marshal

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/training/pdf/Photovoltaics/Fire%20Ops%20PV%20lo%20resl.pdf


----------



## conarb

When applying for a permit the building departments always send me to the fire marshal for their approval if the project is of any size, when a solar contractor comes in to get a permit does the building department send him to the fire marshal for approval to enforce the fire code?


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> I also read it as requiring local AHJs to either develop prescriptive engineering requirements or require engineering.


We don't require engineering unless the roof covering is tile.

The reasoning behind it is that the PV equipment doesn't weigh much and it pretty much eliminates the live load.

I eyeball the rafter tails to see that the supports line up with the rafters.  I guess that's a form of engineering because every now and then I determine that the roof structure just isn't up to the task.


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> We don't require engineering unless the roof covering is tile.  The reasoning behind it is that the PV equipment doesn't weigh much and it pretty much eliminates the live load.
> 
> I eyeball the rafter tails to see that the supports line up with the rafters.  I guess that's a form of engineering because every now and then I determine that the roof structure just isn't up to the task.


Tiger:

Better read the guildlines that Mark posted, it looks like you have to require it, or come up with prescriptive requirements.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> When applying for a permit the building departments always send me to the fire marshal for their approval if the project is of any size, when a solar contractor comes in to get a permit does the building department send him to the fire marshal for approval to enforce the fire code?


We don't even send them to the planning dept.

Expired permits or code enforcement actions are not an impediment to obtaining a permit for PV.

It has been proposed that we open an office on Saturdays just for solar permitting and all plans will be approved over the counter.

The goal is a standard plan that can be approved in minutes.

I heard a well known building official tell a packed auditorium that the inspection of PV should be no more difficult or time consuming than inspecting a water heater.  At that same seminar I heard that there is a push to let the solar industry self certify their installations.

That's a great idea.

This is all because of pressure from Sacramento.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> Tiger:Better read the guildlines that Mark posted, it looks like you have to require it, or come up with prescriptive requirements.


There's lots of stuff that we ignore.


----------



## ICE

We trust them to climb ladders and install PV.  You can tell that they have had safety training.



https://flic.kr/p/obJnTG  [/URL]


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> There's lots of stuff that we ignore.


Why can't everybody ignore the stupid accessibility stuff then?   It appears that you enforce what you want to enforce and ignore what you don't want to enforce, so enforcement is a function of political correctness?


----------



## north star

*( & - & )*





> "  ...so enforcement is a function of political correctness?"


IMO,  ...absolutely !........Is that so hard to believe ?....Again, IMO, but a lotof AHJ's do not want their code officials thinking too much, but rather,

to be an expendable puppet by which their own agendas are being carried

out, and enforcement  [ or conversely, "non-enforcement"  ] is just part of

the game of trying to remain employed with that particular AHJ.



*( & - & )*


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> Why can't everybody ignore the stupid accessibility stuff then?


Yes that is the answer, just ignor codes and laws YOU don't like.....


----------



## conarb

Speaking of agenda, I was reading our 2013 Green Code and found this:



			
				2013 California Green Code said:
			
		

> GLOBAL  WARMING POTENTIAL  VALUE   (GWP VALUE).The 100-year GWP value published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in either its Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1995); or its Fourth Assessment A-3 Report (AR4) (IPCC, 2007). The SAR GWP values are found in column "SAR (100-yr)" of Table 2.14.; the AR4 GWP values are found in column "lOOyr" of Table 2.14.


So now the Green Police are going to be enforcing the Agenda of the United Nations by reference when they enforce codes, when Bush 1 signed the United Nations Agenda for the 21st century we were told not to worry. that it was non-binding, seems like it is now binding.


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> So now the Green Police are going to be enforcing the Agenda of the United Nations


----------



## ICE

When it finally starts raining again there's gonna be a lot of unhappy homeowners.













Wadaya wanna bet that we get blamed.


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

I see the workers are tied off in conformance with OSHA, were you tied off when you went up there?


----------



## ICE

I sent a drone.


----------



## ICE

Well they fixed it.  The roof is new too....and not a cheap one either.





















The correction said to install the flashing "shingle fashion".  It should have said "Get the Hell off of this roof and go back to work setting chokers"


----------



## steveray

Did they cut the shingles with a torch or a chainsaw? I am arguing with Lowes right now about the need for "shingle style" positive flashing on a wood sided window replacement job instead of just caulk....


----------



## MASSDRIVER

What a bunch of a.s.s.holes.

That's strait up crap right there.

Brent.


----------



## fireguy

I like the custom paint job, adds something to the job.

This is what we used on motor homes to seal screws penetrating the aluminum skin.

http://www.crlaurence.com/crlapps/showline/offerpage.aspx?Productid=12453&GroupID=19978&History=30587%3A19747%3A19758%3A19954&ModelID=19978

It is 3/8 round butyl sealant.  Pinch off a bit and put it under the metal or plastic, where the fastener hole will be. Run the screw down into the roof.  The screw will pull the sealant through the hole and seal the hole.  Much better than silicone sealer globbed on top of the screw.  When we need to install sheetmetal steps on a restaurant roof, that is our method of installation.


----------



## mark handler

fireguy said:
			
		

> .  ...This is what we used on motor homes ...


But not listed for use in home construction


----------



## Chad Pasquini

Wow, Ice wherever you are, they need you there.


----------



## ICE

The solar crew was in the attic.  They said that the fan vent was not connected to the fan before they went in the attic.  I said, "Well now you've made me feel bad for making you fix it".


----------



## ICE

You know, there's really not that much to know when it comes to installing solar.  Articles 690 and 705.  There's more in the rest of the code but scant little of it applies to what a solar installer does.

Last Friday I met the entire district office of a mid-sized solar company at a job site.  There were six workmen and three supervisors.  They were there to discuss corrections.

I am certain that they pass inspection with few corrections in most jurisdictions but failed dramatically in mine.  Hence the meeting.  They came away from it with a free education that will most likely be ignored as they continue to install the equipment wrong because it's less expensive and they get away with it in most places.

Many times I get a response to a correction that sounds like this, "I know about the plastic wire tie."  When I ask, "If you know that they aren't allowed, why did you use them?"  They reply "Theres only a few places that don't allow them."

Several of the corrections that I wrote were absolutely foreign to them and it's not a new company.

What can be gleaned from this information?  For starters, inspectors aren't doing their job.  Competent electrical contractors have avoided the solar craze.  The entrepreneurs that dominate the industry are willing to sacrifice safety to make more money.  It's not like they couldn't do the work with professionals and still make plenty of money.....they are greedy and it shows.

One would think that as the industry develops, it would mature and improve.  That's not happening with solar.  I can point to only one major player that has gotten better and many more flakes are coming to the party.


----------



## ICE

This is an example of why I don't touch anything.


----------



## steveray

Shirley, that would never cause a problem......


----------



## HobertGajews

ICE said:
			
		

> Solar contractors can be difficult to work with.  The company will have a C-10 or B license so they will install a new service along with the solar equipment.  I wish that they wouldn't.


Ya i do agree with you.. Solar contractors are difficult to work with even I have faced similar problem earlier..


----------



## ICE

They're not getting what they expected.


----------



## conarb

These solar customers are really getting ripped off, especially those who lease them, if they go to sell the FHA and other GSEs will not finance with leased solar on them, and from  what I hear there are horrendous penalties if the lease is paid off early.  I saw a strange letter to the editor the other day from a guy who bought his:



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> Solar users need to know all the factsI was persuaded by low prices when I was first solicited and encouraged to switch to solar power.
> 
> When  I investigated and purchased solar for my home, I had high hopes that  this would reduce my power bills. However, what the solar power company  didn't tell me was the accumulation of fees I would be obligated to pay  PG&E once the cycle was over.
> 
> While my monthly bill is lower  each month, I was slammed with an abnormally large bill that I owed to  PG&E without any warning whatsoever. I was simply told nothing, then  expected to pay.
> 
> Truthfully, I don't even fully understand the  process, and am disappointed with the solar power company for the  information they withheld. We deserve to know exactly what we're getting  into!
> 
> Larry Miller
> 
> Concord¹


I don't know what he's talking about and he apparently doesn't either.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_26559086/sept-19-letters-editor


----------



## MASSDRIVER

ICE said:
			
		

> They're not getting what they expected.


You will never get what you expect from solar, unless you have realistically low expectations.

Brent


----------



## ICE

They did it again.  Left everything wide open and they're gone.





Here's something new.  They painted the GEC.


----------



## steveray

Nothing wrong with the paint on the GEC unless it is the connections...Correct? Maybe so no one scraps it?


----------



## ICE

The paint is a great idea.  There will be witness marks from the shovel.


----------



## steveray

A shovel can take care of all witnesses.......


----------



## ICE

The inspection request said "rough electrical" and it was....rough that is.  There are permits for the solar and a service upgrade.

As usual, I started on the roof.  The kid in charge told me that they only wanted the service upgrade inspected and not the rooftop solar.

I explained that we do a rough inspection of the solar as well.  He told me that they never get a rough inspection of the rooftop solar and that I can inspect that at final.  I said "suit yourself but the modules will have to be removed for that rough/final inspection."   He got on the phone and was able to assure me that his project manager is positive that we don't require a rough solar inspection and I should get off the roof and inspect the service.

Then he says "You're the first inspector that's ever come up with this s h i t."  I'm not going to tell where I hid his head.

















Before I returned to the office, the project manager called the office manager to complain about corrections that I wrote.  I love it when the managers get together and complain about the inspector.  As it turns out, I should not have written corrections on the rooftop solar because I wasn't there to inspect it.  I recommended that they toss out the correction slip and wait till I am there to inspect the rooftop solar.  Now see how easy that was...Hell I'm management material.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

At least he has a 250 dollar radio.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

But he's in violation of both state and federal law by not being tied off, in fact our Tiger can't go up there to inspect the installation without being in violation of the law.  Around here inspectors never go up on roofs anymore, even nailing inspections, for what they are worth, are done from underneath.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

conarb said:
			
		

> But he's in violation of both state and federal law by not being tied off, in fact our Tiger can't go up there to inspect the installation without being in violation of the law.  Around here inspectors never go up on roofs anymore, even nailing inspections, for what they are worth, are done from underneath.


When it comes to inspections, I always get my money's worth in Hillsborough, Sacramento, and some of the small towns. Others...windshield inspectors. Why even bother showing up?

"Yep. There is definitely some short of sheet product up there".

Brent.


----------



## Rick18071

Where are the white and green wires coming from?


----------



## Rick18071

It's frustrating but my third party inspection company tells me they are not insured for me to climb ladders.


----------



## conarb

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> It's frustrating but my third party inspection company tells me they are not insured for me to climb ladders.


Not only are they not doing roof nailing inspections (they do sign off the card by looking from below for shiners) but they are no-longer testing smoke detectors, I've had long step ladders for them but they won't go up for insurance reasons.

I do have to ask ICE what he's looking for on solar panel inspections, there is nothing in the prescriptive code about additional weight or anchorage, it seems that engineering should be required on each and every installation.  Also, looking at his latest picture I don't see the 3' clearance from hips and valleys for the firemen, the 3' at the ridges and eaves looks suspect too.  I heard that clearance requirement went into state law (although I forget where).  *Here's what the state fire marshal says.*


----------



## conarb

I thought the solar requirements had been codified in the Civil Code but can't find them there, what I do find is that they are included in the Fire Code.  My understanding is that an AHJ has to adopt the Fire Code, yet I find that even a solar panel contractor says that since January 1st of this year the Fire Code requirements are mandatory for even residential structures.



			
				Solar Power World said:
			
		

> New solar panel restrictions will limit your roof-space options in  California. Effective Jan. 1, 2014, all California cities and counties  will mandate more stringent solar roof setback guidelines regarding the  solar panel placement on your roof.This will limit many  homeowners from getting their optimal solar system.  Many try to  maximize or oversize their system to lower or zero out their electricity  bills.  This may no longer be an option as the new roof restrictions  mandate a 36-inch setback from the roof ridge line, which is often the  optimal location for solar panels.¹


I guess that means that Tiger has to turn down that entire roof assembly.

¹ http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2013/12/why-is-california-limiting-your-solar-roof-space/


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> I do have to ask ICE what he's looking for on solar panel inspections


There's lots of stuff to look for.  You mentioned the 3' clear space for the firemen and that has been a problem.  The solar companies are surprised to learn that they can't run conduit in the clear space.  They are convinced that the solar array is not allowed in the 3' clear space because the firemen don't want to walk on the panels but all else is okay.  While they are correct about the array and the firemen not wanting to walk on them, they miss the fact that the conduit, j-boxes, disconnects and combiners present a tripping hazard.

The contractors became way unruly when I started enforcing this....so I got it in writing from the fire dept.

In my opinion, 3' isn't enough...especially when it is mostly overhang.  Two story and higher better be four feet or I won't walk it.


----------



## mark handler

Section 605 California Fire Code (CFC).

· A 3-foot-wide clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located on a hip roof. (CFC 605.11.3.2.1; also see exception for slopes 2:12 or less)

· Two, 3-foot-wide access pathways from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located on a single ridge roof. (CFC 605.11.3.2.2; also see exception for slopes 2:12 or less)

· Panels/modules installed on residential buildings with roof hips and valleys shall be located no closer than 18 inches to a hip or a valley where panels/modules are to be placed on both sides of a hip or valley. (CFC 605.11.3.2.3; also see exception for slopes 2:12 or less)

· Panels/modules installed on residential buildings shall be located no higher than 3 feet below the ridge in order to allow for fire department smoke ventilation operations. (CFC 605.11.3.2.4)


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

If you turn these down you are doing the owners a favor, I posted a  letter to the editor above showing that people with solar panels are  getting unexpected bills, in today's paper this:



			
				contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> Over the past four to five months, I have been called at least three to six times a day by people using the names of local contractors trying to sell me the contractor's services. Each call is a different contractor name. It appears some marketing company has set up a call center and is selling these calls to local contractors. They offer no way to get off the call list and they are not checking the federal "do-not-call" list.
> 
> I seriously doubt I am the only person in the Bay Area being harassed by these calls. If someone can pinpoint the name of the call center company, I would file a class-action lawsuit for harassment.
> 
> Flo Samuels
> 
> Hayward¹


I get these calls too, they are all from Solar Contractors trying to sell solar panels and HVAC contractors trying to sell furnace duct cleaning and sealing.  They use high pressure salesmen like aluminum/vinyl siding salesmen, this current version of solar is already obsolete due to be replaced by nanotechnology where the roof, windows, or paint will be the solar collector.  These victims are in for a rude surprise when they start getting bills, if they lease them the home can't even be sold to a buyer subject to FHA loan requirements, the fine print makes early lease termination extremely expensive.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_26725907/oct-15-letters-editor


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

What happened, did you make them tear it off and replace it in compliance with the 3' rule?  If so did they try to go over your head?


----------



## MASSDRIVER

How the world works when you want to convince people that B.S. Is actually beneficial.

Start with a technology that hit its limit in the 70's, and is totally hamstrung and can only be improved by fractional in elements at best.

Make sure the technology performs at its best only under the most ideal conditions, and only part of the year.

Make sure that same system degrades over time and becomes useless after oh, say, 15 years.

Begin propoganda campaign to fool people it is the greatest cost saving benifit ever known to man.

When that fails create conditions to encourage brownout power losses for financial gain.

When panic insues, activate huge government subsidies to pay for the technology that nobody can afford, and enable lease conditions so a third party can soak up any subsidy and tax benefit, being for all intents and purposes a parasite on homeowners, and adding another level of difficulty when selling their home, along with asinine termite inspections that are an absolute racket, and resale inspections, being another government racket, and private home inspections which may or may not be a racket.

When all this does not improve the dumbness of the whole situation, have the govoner proclaim his wishes for a "million solar roof" program.

Don't tell anybody that the manufacture of this technology is an environmental rape, just not right here right. But wait till all that crap has to come off and be disposed of.

Act butthurt when all this crap goes tits up, and state the policy was not implemented properly.

Don't forget to let people install this crap that have no idea how to a single thing correctly.

Enjoy the carnival from the sidelines.

Brent


----------



## steveray

More fine work from the nation's leading solar company.....And I am the jerk that doesn't let them energize.....


----------



## conarb

Steve:

is that the company with "city" in it's name and owned by the guy who builds electric cars?  Most of their installations are leased, not owned.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> Steve:is that the company with "city" in it's name and owned by the guy who builds electric cars?  Most of their installations are leased, not owned.


That company's work product has improved.  The PV side that is.  Subcontractors do the service upgrades when necessary and they are the low bidder category of contractor.

I recently read an article about Mr. Musk's five billion dollar plan for a battery plant in Nevada.  It will start out with a million square feet of factory floor.  The crux of the article was that it may be a poor business decision due to sluggish sales of electric cars.  I think that he plans on putting the batteries in houses alongside PV systems.

If you own stock in solar companies, you may want to dump it before we get normal rainy weather.  I have a hunch that thousands of roofs will be leaking.  A new subspecies of contractor will appear.  They will be tasked with R&R of PV with roof repairs.  I've experienced a couple of these and it's not electricians resorting to roofing.  No sir, it's roofers risking their lives.


----------



## conarb

I read he asked for proposals from California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, Nevada offered the least regulation and the best tax incentives, I wonder if he's even going to have to get permits to build there?


----------



## Pcinspector1

I've had two commercial installs in the last two years and when I was on both roofs I verified the solar panels manufacture, stock number and (UL) listing. When I'm off the roof I checked this information with the engineered plans and both contractors switched out the panels with another brand.

I requested new calculations and had no issues with either job after receiving the new info stamped by the engineer. I'm told they run into panel supply issues apparently but as long as the engineering is changed and updated it can be passed.

pc1


----------



## ICE

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> I'm told they run into panel supply issues apparently but as long as the engineering is changed and updated it can be passed. pc1


In the past, there has been turmoil in the industry.  The panel specified on the plans may not be manufactured when they try to purchase them.  Many of the panel manufactures went out of business as soon as their panels started failing en-mass.



> When I'm off the roof I checked this information with the engineered plans


I ask them to bring the plans up on the roof.


----------



## steveray

conarb said:
			
		

> I read he asked for proposals from California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, Nevada offered the least regulation and the best tax incentives, I wonder if he's even going to have to get permits to build there?


That is kind of funny because Texas won't even let him sell cars there because their legislators are bought by the old boy car dealers....


----------



## ICE




----------



## steveray

What? That is readily accessible!!!....You don't need a tool to move the rubbermaid shed, just put your back into it!.....And I don't know what is going on with that switch thing!


----------



## ICE

steveray said:
			
		

> What? I don't know what is going on with that switch thing!


Code requires a disconnect within sight of PV inverters.  This system incorporates micro inverters on the roof.  The switch is the disconnect.  This equipment isn't appropriate for a wet location.


----------



## ICE

The solar a/c disconnect is 40" from the water's edge.  Therefor the pool or the electric service is also a violation.  My conundrum is that our policy is to ignore ancillary violations when we are there for PV.  The other possibility is that the pool or the el. service were inspected and approved.  If that's the case, I am absolutely not supposed to say anything.....to anyone.

So here's where it gets sticky.  I wrote a correction that states that the disconnect can't be within 5' of the water.  The solar contractor wants to know why the service can be there but not the disconnect.  I said that the service can't be there.  He said that if I am not going to make them move the service, it's not fair to make him move the disconnect.  I said, "Okay it's not fair, now move the disconnect".





If I had to bet, I'd say that the pool is the violation and the windows aren't safety glazing either.  I need to be reminded to research the file on this one.


----------



## Pcinspector1

I said, "Okay it's not fair, now move the disconnect".

ICE, your on roll!

"Cannon ball!!!"

pc1


----------



## ICE

I looked at the file and the pool and service were both done under a permit and approved.  The service was done in 1972 and the pool was built in 1977.


----------



## steveray

Nice.....I get the similar violations and arguments for working clearances and dedicated equipment space on at least 50% of my solar installs.....The state gives them a pass every time, so I do not have to deal with it....The pool seems like a much bigger safety concern...


----------



## Span

I've one solar related question to help, on ICE's post on Feb 27, 2013 #4. There's solar sub-panel to combine each solar strings then feed it to main panel with a solar disconnect.

If the solar panels are installed on a detached garage and solar disconnect is on garage existing 60A sub-panel and did not send solar directly back to main panel.

Question 1. Can solar feed to existing sub-panel with other circuits "Not just solar combine panel" then back to main?

              2. Does code require a dedicate solar  disconnect at main?


----------



## ICE

> 1. Can solar feed to existing sub-panel with other circuits "Not just solar combine panel" then back to main?2. Does code require a dedicate solar disconnect at main?


1.Yes... maybe  what is the bus rating of the sub-panel?

2. No...a disconnect is required but not dedicated.  So the feeder breaker may work.


----------



## Span

Thanks ICE.

Bus rating 125A.

Dedicate disconnect not required I'm OK with this too, just don't quite understand what NEC want.

705.12.A allow connection to the supply side of the service.

705.12.D1 require a dedicate breaker or disconnect "but didn't specify at main or any sub within premises"

Personally, I like the wording in CA Solar Permitting Guidebook on pg 26. It said "No electrical loads shall be connected between the output of the inverter

and the connection to the house electrical panel"

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Solar_Permitting_Guidebook.pdf


----------



## ICE

Span said:
			
		

> Thanks ICE.Bus rating 125A.
> 
> Dedicate disconnect not required I'm OK with this too, just don't quite understand what NEC want.
> 
> 705.12.A allow connection to the supply side of the service.
> 
> 705.12.D1 require a dedicate breaker or disconnect "but didn't specify at main or any sub within premises"
> 
> Personally, I like the wording in CA Solar Permitting Guidebook on pg 26. It said "No electrical loads shall be connected between the output of the inverter
> 
> and the connection to the house electrical panel"
> 
> http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Solar_Permitting_Guidebook.pdf





> 705.12.D1705.12.D1*Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect.* Each source interconnection shall be made at a *dedicated* circuit breaker or fusible disconnecting means.


That will be the case at the point of connection at the sub-panel.  I misspoke when I said: "a disconnect is required but not dedicated" I was focused on the feeder breaker, which clearly is not dedicated.



> CA Solar Permitting Guidebook on pg 26. It said "No electrical loads shall be connected between the output of the inverter and the connection to the house electrical panel"


The sub-panel is the "house electrical panel".  There are no loads between the inverter and the sub-panel.

One of the tricky parts of this arrangement will be the labeling.


----------



## Span

Thanks ICE, I always thought that "house electrical panel" means the main panel only.


----------



## ICE

Span said:
			
		

> Thanks ICE, I always thought that "house electrical panel" means the main panel only.


I had not heard the term until you pointed it out.  I have encountered the sub-panel connection only a few times.


----------



## ICE

Both of the wires were inside the c-crimp.  It looked odd in that there were no marks from a crimp tool or pliers yet the crimp was closed.  I pulled on it and it slipped right off.


----------



## ICE

These flashing are not on the plans.  The worker pointed that out several times along with the statement that "Since they are not on the plans, they can't possibly be installed incorrectly".


----------



## ICE

We keep letting these solar installers do service upgrades.  Here we are again with a service mounted over a hole in the wall.  And don't even tell me that there's no conductor splices in that hole.





The contractor says that the owner installed the receptacle so it's not his correction to deal with.


----------



## ICE

The service is behind the bush.





The orange NM is solar.  Micro-inverters so it is AC on the NM.


----------



## Paul Sweet

That TV dish in #134 is going to put quite a dent in the output of the panels.


----------



## conarb

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> That TV dish in #134 is going to put quite a dent in the output of the panels.


Good point, and since output is cancelled ahead of all shadows, maybe 50% reduction?  Also, aren't they supposed to be 3' off the eaves and valley for firemen to walk?


----------



## mtlogcabin

Depends on the roof

605.11.3.2 Residential systems for one- and two-family dwellings.

Access to residential systems for one- and two-family dwellings shall be provided in accordance with Sections 605.11.3.2.1 through 605.11.3.2.4.

605.11.3.2.1 Residential buildings with hip roof layouts.

Panels/modules installed on residential buildings with hip roof layouts shall be located in a manner that provides a 3-foot-wide (914 mm) clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located. The access pathway shall be located at a structurally strong location on the building capable of supporting the live load of fire fighters accessing the roof.

Exception: These requirements shall not apply to roofs with slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) or less.

605.11.3.2.2 Residential buildings with a single ridge.

Panels/modules installed on residential buildings with a single ridge shall be located in a manner that provides two, 3-foot-wide (914 mm) access pathways from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located.

Exception: This requirement shall not apply to roofs with slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) or less.

605.11.3.2.3 Residential buildings with roof hips and valleys.

Panels/modules installed on residential buildings with roof hips and valleys shall be located no closer than 18 inches (457 mm) to a hip or a valley where panels/modules are to be placed on both sides of a hip or valley. Where panels are to be located on only one side of a hip or valley that is of equal length, the panels shall be permitted to be placed directly adjacent to the hip or valley.

Exception: These requirements shall not apply to roofs with slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) or less.

605.11.3.2.4 Residential building smoke ventilation.

Panels/modules installed on residential buildings shall be located no higher than 3 feet (914 mm) below the ridge in order to allow for fire department smoke ventilation operations.


----------



## steveray

conarb said:
			
		

> Good point, and since output is cancelled ahead of all shadows, maybe 50% reduction?  Also, aren't they supposed to be 3' off the eaves and valley for firemen to walk?


If they use micro inverters, one shaded panel does not kill the "string".....


----------



## Span

#135 The outlet box connector is not an approved box fastening device, I might ask for screws and common neutral identify each pair at both end and double pole breaker. If the new panel with old wires OK, if new wires from back of the old panel it always means they need access opening.

#136 For solar if conduit turning into attic with romax I'll pay attention next.

#134 Can inspector verify solar performance? and most of solar did not specify conduit space above roof I always wondering whether I should use T310.15.B.3.c


----------



## ICE

It is near 10:00AM and the shadows indicate that the PV array will never see direct sunlight.  They face north.





At the first inspection there was a old panel next to the new one seen here on the left.  I wrote a correction that stated that the old panel would not be allowed to accept a PV contribution as there was no main and six or more breakers.





So they turned the box on the left into a j-box and installed a service upgrade.





Silly me, I asked for a structural strap across the over-bored top plates.  What I failed to do was tell them exactly how to do that.  So he says does that mean that we can't plaster.  That and the fact that there's no lath point towards that being a no.





And they call themselves electricians.


----------



## ICE

The roof was tile.  Where the solar will be, the tile has been replaced with asphalt shingles.





                                                   It looks like the Skinny Man is doing inspections

The plan is to reinstall the tile across the leading edge of the roof.





Water will be looking for a way out....but wait a minute here they say, there's weep holes in that sheet metal.  Well cry me a river.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE,

You need to photo shop your pictures, your shadow makes it looks like you got a "muffin top" going on and your playing a trumpet!

What nations flag is that in the background?

pc1


----------



## ICE

According to the plans, that is the FD setback.









And they did a service upgrade too.


----------



## ICE

I'm one of the few inspectors around here that requires a torque wrench.  I gave these two that correction at the previous inspection.  Today they had the correct lay-in lugs installed.  The surface was prepared and there is antioxidant at each lug.  None of the lugs are bent.

So I asked them if they torqued the hardware.  Absolutely they replied.  I said, "Show me your torque wrench".  Here they are cutting the package open with tin snips.  They got it out of the wrapper but alas and alack, they had no sockets.  Thankfully the HO had a socket.  Then I told them AGAIN that they have to torque the set screw also.





I have to deal with complete idiots.....and the solar industry is just getting started.  What's worse is that the people that hired these idiots think that they are all top notch.  The easy money brought a flood of entrepreneurs which is okay as long as they hire qualified installers.  But you see, that is too costly and they are getting away with the shoddy work

Feature this folks.  I put these people through a thorough inspection and they hate that.  They do crap work here, there and everywhere....and a lot of it.  I know that few inspectors pay attention to the details.  I know that because these people don't save the crap work just for me.  They haven't had anyone tell them that a c-crimp tool exists or that the colored dots have a special meaning.  I have to explain what a wet location wire nut is...every time.  The service upgrades are atrocious.  The last picture in the post before this one has four or more violations and there was a total of 16 for that job.

In the long run, it may not matter.  If solar installations don't start failing left and right, the crap work will have been good enough.  I have wondered about that concept in the past.  Some of the corrections that I write are almost esoteric.  The question arises asking whether it is all worth it considering the low failure rate.  Then something like the solar industry comes along and the experiment gets kicked into high gear.  If within ten years there aren't people getting electrocuted and houses burned down by failed solar, I'll be ready to toss in the towel.  On the other hand, I don't think we are in for a party.  At the least, there's gonna be a lot of solar in the landfill.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

It's a long term disaster.

In 10 years or so I'm going to make my millions removing solar panels and fixing the damage.

It's just like asbestos.

Brent.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE, I had to share something with you, there's federal grant money out there behind this madness!

Just had the solar gal inquiry how long do I take to do a review, how much are the permit cost, how soon can a permit be picked up, does the plans need stamped, how can we streamline the process? Do we have any zoning restrictions, can joe homeowner pull a permit, how many pages is the permit application?

I get the idea that AHJ's kinda give the solar industry some friction when trying to get a solar project going. I told her I hope your not trying to do what their doing in Califoria here cuz I've seen the pictures and get the real story here!

Thanks ICE,

Pc1


----------



## ICE

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> I get the idea that AHJ's kinda give the solar industry some friction when trying to get a solar project going. I told her I hope your not trying to do what their doing in Califoria here cuz I've seen the pictures and get the real story here!


I don't know how it has developed in your locale but there has been a onslaught of solar permits here.  I am but one inspector and my file has around sixty active solar jobs.  The median income in my area is ripe for solar.  There is a demand for a cost saving enterprise and not enough smarts to understand that solar is a bad idea.  The big players own the equipment and reap the rebates as they rape the owner.  Hells bells, these people can't even sell their property without getting the buyer approved by the solar company that has a lease on the roof.

The state government wants a million solar roofs.  The Governor is green to the bone and has facilitated the solar industry in ways that are unheard of.  For example, there can be outstanding issues such as expired permits, work done without permits, converted garages and bootlegged whatever, all of which will not be an impediment to getting a permit for solar.

A law kicks in September 1,2015 that requires a 24 hour turnaround on solar applications.  That means that all solar plan checks will be done over the counter.  There are financial constraints on the cost of a permit and the AHJ can require only one inspection which will be the final inspection.  I have even heard of a push to eliminate AHJ inspections altogether.  The thinking is that the equipment is always the same and this can be so standardized that, well what could be wrong?

The one inspection rule will be nothing but trouble.  Telling them to remove the modules because of one violation or another is not going to go down easy.  I envision most jurisdictions giving up.  And let's be honest about this, many jurisdictions don't perform a competent inspection now so why think that they will do any better in the future.  You know, you can't inspect what you can't see.

When I do a final inspection I will invariably ask to have a module removed so that I can inspect the ground lug that is attached to the module frame.  So often, the kid that met me for the inspection says that he doesn't have any tools or training, so no he will not remove a module.  Now there is another inspection required....but that's okay because the owner isn't home and I can't verify the detectors so I had to show up again anyway.

At the next inspection the kid can remove a module only to discover that the lugs are wrong.  The owner is there this time and not happy about it.  It gets worse when the owner finds out that each bedroom requires a detector.  He snarls at me, "Why didn't you tell me that before now"?   Now comes the fourth or fifth inspection. Can you say "water heater"?

I was in attendance at a symposium of solar industry players when a Building Official that sits on a state committee told the crowd that a solar inspection should take no more time to inspect than a water heater.  I interrupted with the statement that I can inspect a water heater in the time that it takes to say "water heater". The people leading the charge have deluded expectations.


----------



## Edmcl

We are lucky to have a majority of the solar contractors in the area that actually care and take pride in their work.  It is rare that i see the crap that you deal with.  They are more than willing to show me that they have torqued  everything correctly.  All the  panels are open and they are proud of and take ownership of the work that they do.


----------



## ICE

Maybe I should move...oh wait a minute, I couldn't afford to live anywhere near Pleasant Hill.


----------



## Edmcl

I have dealt with the type of contractor you deal with when I worked for a large city.  Keep up the good work.  You make a difference and I enjoy your posts.


----------



## ICE

We let solar contractors obtain a permit to install service upgrades.  There must be a dearth of electricians.

This guy got a handful of corrections.  It took five inspections.  Here he is wrestling with a goose neck.





The fiberglass ladder is always a sign that you are dealing with an electrician.


----------



## ICE

This one is a doozy.  The kid that met me said I was there for a lath inspection around a new service box.  I said that I don't recall approving the service so I am surprised that lath has been installed.  He showed me a job card upon which I signed for rough electrical.  I also wrote "rough on roof".

This is under a patio cover.  Most of the back yard is patio cover....I'd guess it's between 6 and 8 hundred square feet.  There's six ceiling fans.









The owner was there cleaning the granite counters.  He was completely nonplussed when hearing "It can't be there".  So much so that I figure he must know somebody.

The kid asked me "How does an electrician who's supposed to know the code do something this wrong".  Oh what I wanted to say.....


----------



## TheCommish

I love the headless guy on the roof, it may be a Freudian slip for the amount of knowledge it has


----------



## ICE

They called for final inspection.





At the final inspection, I always ask them to remove a module so that I can see the ground lug.  This is an Ilsco lug.  Except for the nut, it was installed like it was an Amphenol lug.


----------



## steveray

"At the final inspection, I always ask them to remove a module so that I can see the ground lug. This is an Ilsco lug. Except for the nut, it was installed like it was an Amphenol lug"

Please explain, as I probably would have passed that....


----------



## ICE

You can see between the lug and the module frame because there is a star washer sandwiched between the lug and module.  What should occur is the anodized shall be removed and no/ox applied with no star washer in the way.  Beyond that is the nut which should be threaded on the screw....but isn't.

Amphenol lugs require the star washer as it is in the picture without removing the anodize or application of no/ox.....plus the nut.


----------



## steveray

I am usually happy when I don't see self tapping sheet metal screws.....So it is good to learn about the listing stuff....


----------



## ICE

This is installed on a rack rail.  When I told him that besides all of the other reasons that this is wrong, there is no way to put a nut on the screw.  He said that they drilled and tapped the aluminum extrusion.  I'm not kidding, he said that they tapped it and used a grounding screw.....they come in a bag of a thousand...he said.









The only nut here was the guy that did this.  I was tempted to step on the wire and say opps!


----------



## ICE

It's the little things that tell a story.





Should I have to tell them to remove the anodize under the entire footprint of the lug?  Would it make a difference?  Hells Bells I don't know.  What I do know is that the lug wasn't tested and listed like this.

I shouldn't have to tell them to tell them to remove the anodize under the entire footprint of the lug....every time.  But if I don't I get blamed for their mistake.  That's because this is the second or third inspection and previously they were told to install lay-in lugs that are listed for solar.  I explained that the anodize must be removed and antioxidant applied.  I reiterated the need for a torque wrench.  I showed them which hole to use.  I made sure that they understood where to place any star washers.

But alas and alack I didn't tell them to remove all of the anodize under the footprint of the lug.  So you know what, it is my fault after all.

They don't mind telling me so either.  They call the office manager and pitch a bitch.  It takes some kind of nerve to complain that I failed to tell them how to do their job.

I suppose I should be telling them what tool to use.


----------



## ICE

The wrong lug for the third time today.  It was a couple of kids doing the work.  They carry their tools in their pockets.  A C-crimp tool won't fit in a pants pocket.

I said to them, "That crimp is wrong"  One of the kids said, "Naw it's pretty tight".  Then I pulled the wire out of the crimp.





The next solar job had this style crimp.





At the last one of the day, they also pointed out that the thing is tight.  That's not the point said I.





The kids at the first job are also roofers.  They did this roof without a permit.





The third job had this.  None of the conduit is anchored.  They asked me what I wanted them to do.  No shlt....they asked me that exact question  "What do you want us to do"?

I went to Pep Boys and bought a pail, Carnuba and a chamois.





They were kinda proud about this.  The idea for the Unistrut came from an Edison drawing.  Shirley those studs are staying put.  ST6236 should do it  after they get done washing my ride.





Check out the beefy straps on the right.  This is the corner of the building.  The straps are bolted to a patio cover beam.  But not much else.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Wonder if those ridge shingles are installed where the prevailing wind can't lift them?

Better get the shingle stick out!

Pc1


----------



## ICE

Did you know that the copper wire can't touch the aluminum?





Or how about this?





There aren't any installation instructions.





If there were, I don't think it would show this.


----------



## jdfruit

Did you try the scan code on the metal plate?


----------



## Span

Here's interesting link regarding power optimizer which I found it last year during panel upgrade.

http://www.nlcpr.com/Deceptions13.php


----------



## ICE

jdfruit said:
			
		

> Did you try the scan code on the metal plate?


Yup....Amazon has them.


----------



## ICE

The contractor that did this is a general contractor who specializes in roofing.  This roof is so shot it's scary to walk on.  By the time they get done there should be plenty of bare spots.


----------



## ICE

Please read this and pay attention to what I have written.

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16148


----------



## ICE

Successful wire management.  They have turned lugs upside down to secure the copper wire away from the aluminum frame.  The lugs have no grounding function.





The lug that is mounted to the side of the rail is the grounding lug.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE, I'll take a nibble,

"Why can't the copper wire touch the aluminum?" dissimilar metals?

Could't they use sheathed cable instead of the bare copper?

pc1


----------



## ICE

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> ICE, I'll take a nibble, "Why can't the copper wire touch the aluminum?" dissimilar metals?
> 
> Could't they use sheathed cable instead of the bare copper?
> 
> pc1


The copper will eat the aluminum.  It's not such a big problem with the rack but it is with the module frame.  I suppose that armored wire would be an option but the cost is a factor.


----------



## ICE

They sure take chances.

I have warned them repeatedly.

I have called the supervisor.

This is Elon's outfit.

If a kid gets hurt......

I'll be all over that.


----------



## ICE

This is the cause of the extra expense.  And yes it has no permits.





The black rail has been raised 6" in order to clear the condensate drain pipe.  There will be a 6" spacer placed at each of the pucks that support the panels.





Here you can see the normal height of the black rail as it is installed without the 6' spacer.





This solar company is one of the best out there for clean installations.  That is primarily due to the rack system that they install.... and only they because the solar company owns the rack system company.

The condensate drain pipe could have been rerouted with one 45° bend.  It would have still drained to the side yard and not been noticeable.  For that matter, if the 2"x4"s were removed the panels might have missed the pipe.  However, the installers didn't know what the pipe was for and they are trained to not touch much of what they find on a roof.  The reality is that even though they will needlesly waste materials and labor on this installation, in the long run it's cheaper than letting them make field decisions to screw with stuff.

In the third picture which shows the rail without the 6" spacers there is a conduit that will be in contact with the panels because they didn't install the 6" spacers.  I pointed that out and they said that they will install the spacers.  I didn't suggest that they reroute the conduit for the obvious reason that they are not qualified to perform electrical work.

Neither the conduit or the condensate drain pipe are fixed in place.  The conduit is sliding downhill and there is a 10° bend at the fitting.

As an aside, I noticed the service drop has a problem.  I have not seen an armored cable used as a service drop before today.  The Chinese finger trap has broken.





Is the conduit for the HVAC a bit too small for the roof jack....or is the roof jack a bit too large for the conduit?  Oh well there's plenty wrong with the HVAC but I can't go there since this is solar that got me on the roof in the first place.  The roof hasn't sagged and apparently the breakers are holding.

Our policy is to not go looking for trouble.

How ironic is that?  I have a poor reputation as a rigid enforcer.  That stems from the volume of corrections that I write.  The truth of the matter is that I overlook damned near as many violations as I write.

Alrighty then, I admit that I should probably delve into the HVAC installation and write corrections.  Maybe even make them get a permit...or three.  But gosh I would get called on the carpet for stirring up a mess.  I was standing on that carpet a couple times last week as it was.

I will call Edison about the service drop and I did cite them for no barrier around the swimming pool.  I am surprised that I don't get in trouble for that.

The thing with the pool happens several times each week and some inspectors never run into it....ever.  How lucky is that?  I would be pleased as punch to never run into another pool barrier violation.  That always stirs up a storm.  Nobody likes hearing that their fence and gate must be corrected.  "And why now?"  "It's been like that for years."  "Nobody said anything when the roof was replaced....the furnace was replaced....you name it."  "What's your name?"  "Who's your supervisor?"  "You stay off my property."  I had a nasty female tell me that I am a bitter person that's out to pick on successful people like her.  Bitter, she said bitter.

Hold on lady, simmer down and understand that I will not make you do anything about the violation.  The policy is to notify you of the violation and place a copy of the notice of violation in the file for your address.  That way if a neighbor's toddler drowns in your pool we are out of reach because we informed you of the violation.

I go through all that BS and do nothing about the violation.  The AHJ doesn't care if a kid drowns as long as the AHJ can't be sued.  I am not aware of this policy being put to the test but I think it will fail to exonerate the AHJ.  If it came before me as a judge I would make them remove the word Authority from AHJ....and punish to the greatest extent possible.

The rope tied service drop passes right over the pool.





By the proximity of the pool to the P/L I'm guessing that medium voltage lines pass over the pool as well.  Could it be that there is no permit for the pool?  Did Edison allow the pool in their easement?

Wow, I could be in a ton of trouble with this one.


----------



## jdfruit

About 15yrs ago I had a project in Riverside County; the electric service had to be relocated to allow the pool. SC Edison was the instigator for calling out the issue.


----------



## ICE

This drop is over 12' above the water so it is legal.


----------



## pete_t

ICE said:
			
		

> This drop is over 12' above the water so it is legal.


680.8(A) requires 22 ½  feet above pool.

12 feet is clearance to grade.


----------



## ICE

We have to follow Edison rules which for this type of wire is 12'.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Is the drop possibly shielded because it goes over a pool?

Like a protection shielding in case an aluminum pole touches it while in the pool?

Brent.


----------



## ICE

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Is the drop possibly shielded because it goes over a pool? Like a protection shielding in case an aluminum pole touches it while in the pool?
> 
> Brent.


The metal shield is the neutral.


----------



## ICE

They requested an inspection for a meter release.  That's because there are no electricians working for the solar company.  They hire a subcontractor to do the service upgrade and they handle the inspections.


----------



## ICE

One of the big problems facing the solar industry is copper wire touching the aluminum frame of modules and the racking system.  This company installed bare copper lugs on the module frames and the racking.





They also placed antioxidant compound in the terminals because ......well you all know what happens when you mix copper with copper.

The icing on the cake is the reaction I got when I told them that this is wrong.  They have already gone to the office manager to complain that I am picking on them.  They gave me snickering and muttered insults.....They are such a bunch of idiots but they were smart enough to get into a government program to do energy audits on residential.  Then they insulate, replace windows, install fans, remove asbestos duct,  and install four panel PV systems that crank out a 1000 watts.  Whoopee were toasting bread for free.

The company is from Arizona.  They also install solar water heaters.  Now that's a racket.  They have never passed an inspection.  They took out near 40 permits in my office.  After doing a few they just up and stopped.  The government was giving them huge money but it wasn't enough.....to do it over a half dozen times.

Their plans always include a purlin and brace to support a 650# water tank on the roof.  They never install them.....well almost never.  I went in one attic where they blew in insulation three feet thick.  I put a picture at the forum but I can't find it now.

What's troubling is that I have a tiny piece of ground to work here in SoCal and I know they are getting away with a lot in many places.


----------



## ICE

The satellite dish is in the fire dept setback.  The plans state that the HO will move it.  Fat chance huh.


----------



## steveray

This is the stuff we have to deal with when the legislators know best....Gotta be "green" friendly

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

                          General Assembly

                       Committee Bill No. 6435

                        January Session, 2015

                            LCO No. 5433

    *05433HB06435ET_*

Referred to Committee on ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY

Introduced by:

    (ET)

Connecticut General Assembly - January Session, 2015

    AN ACT STREAMLINING THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR

PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

    Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) As used in this section:

    (1) "Residential solar photovoltaic system" means equipment and devices

that have the primary purpose of collecting solar energy and generating

electricity by photovoltaic effect, have a nameplate capacity of twelve

kilowatts or less, are installed on the roof of a single-family or multifamily

home, conform to the National Electrical Code, and State Building and Fire

     Safety Codes and do not exceed the maximum building height authorized by the

municipality where such home is situated;

    (2) "Municipality" means any town, consolidated town and city or

consolidated town and borough;

    (3) "Permit" means a permit to install and interconnect a residential solar

photovoltaic system to the electric grid;

    (4) "Permit applicant" means a natural person or household seeking a permit

to install a residential solar photovoltaic system;

    (5) "Inspection" means a structural, electrical and fire safety inspection

of the permit applicant's residential solar photovoltaic system.

    (b) Not later than January 1, 2016, each municipality shall develop a

permitting process for residential solar photovoltaic systems. Each

municipality shall develop and post on the municipality's Internet web site a

permit application for the installation of a residential solar photovoltaic

system. A municipality may allow for electronic submission of such application.

Each municipality may charge a flat fee for such permit, unless the

municipality exempts such systems from payment of permit fees pursuant to

section 29-263 of the general statutes.

    © Not more than three business days after receipt of a permit

application, a municipality shall inspect the applicant's residential solar

photovoltaic system. Not more than one inspection is required for each

residential solar photovoltaic system, unless a health or safety issue is

detected during the inspection of such system. A municipality may perform a

separate fire safety inspection if deemed necessary by the municipality. Review

of the permit application shall be limited to whether the residential solar

photovoltaic system meets all health and safety requirements of municipal,

state and federal law. If the municipality makes a finding that a residential

solar photovoltaic system does not meet municipal, state or federal health and

safety requirements, such municipality may require the permit applicant to

apply for a special use permit.

    (d) Not more than ten business days after receipt of a permit application,

a municipality shall inform such permit applicant whether such application is

approved or denied.

NOTE: THIS SECTION CONTAINS A FORM/CHART THAT IS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN A

TEXT FORMAT.  PLEASE CALL STATE NET AT 1-800-726-4566 FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION.

    Statement of Purpose:

    To streamline the permitting process for residential solar photovoltaic

systems.

Co-Sponsors:                             REP. HOYDICK, 120th Dist.

    H.B. 6435


----------



## jdfruit

steveray

Please start a thread with the legislation posted above so we can comment (murderous intent).

Don't want to clog up this thread


----------



## Span

http://www.strutchannelfittings.com/THK-GBL-4SS-ILSCO-SOLAR-GROUNDING-CONNECTOR-UL2703-CERTIFIED-UNIT-PRICE1000-PCS-MADE-IN-USA_p_1206.html

Will this help for grounding connection?


----------



## ICE

Span said:
			
		

> http://www.strutchannelfittings.com/THK-GBL-4SS-ILSCO-SOLAR-GROUNDING-CONNECTOR-UL2703-CERTIFIED-UNIT-PRICE1000-PCS-MADE-IN-USA_p_1206.htmlWill this help for grounding connection?


I would like to say yes but the answer is no.  We attach a cut sheet from Ilsco to the plans during plan check.  It shows the correct lugs with exacting installation instructions.  Seldom does anyone read the plans before I get there.

This particular numbskull has tried five other times to pass inspection.  He started with Crouse-Hinds lugs that are not UL2703.  Next was Burndy which also lacks UL2703.  Then there was a lug made of aluminum with no identification.  Amphenol showed up installed wrong.  And the time before this it was Ilsco installed with a star washer between the lug and the rails/module frames.  Each time I showed him the cut sheet that is part of the plans.  The company has been informed about keeping the bare copper wire secured away from the aluminum components and they stuck bare copper lugs all over it.  To top it off they have been to my office to complain about me.  Apparently nothing satisfies me.

So how dumb are they?  They paid $5.60 apiece for the bare copper lugs. They bought 100 of them to get a better deal.


----------



## ICE

The state government of California gave us this to speed up the permitting process.  It is 82 pages of how to go about he business of a building dept.  It's gonna make us real fast.

California Solar Permitting Guidebook  http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Solar_Permitting_Guidebook_2014.pdf

Here's where the state got carried away.  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2188

This is in there:



> (2) The checklist and required permitting documentation shall be published on a publically accessible Internet Web site, if the city, county, or city and county has an Internet Web site, and the city, county, or city and county *shall allow for electronic submittal* of a permit application and associated documentation, and shall authorize the electronic signature on all forms, applications, and other documentation in lieu of a wet signature by an applicant.





> (2) “Electronic submittal” means the utilization of one or more of the followingA) Email.
> 
> (B) The Internet.
> 
> © Facsimile.





> (h) For a small residential rooftop solar energy system eligible for expedited review, only one inspection shall be required


----------



## Wayne

Solar

The AHJ in Clark County (think Las Vegas) does electronic submitals but it isn't very popular.  It might be the system which is getting replaced soon.


----------



## ICE

I had a solar contractor screaming at me today.  He called me an A-hole.  I reckon I'll choke the bastard with corrections.


----------



## ICE

The contractor got angry at the last attempt for a final inspection.  We require smoke and co detectors when solar goes on the roof.  You know.....the building code and a permit gets you detectors.  Well he hadn't installed any and there were none.  He had a bunch on the truck so it wasn't like he had to go to Home Depot.  He says, "You didn't say anything about detectors the other four times that you have been here".  I said "Hey now let me save you a trip... go ahead and put them in and get the plaster work done.....when I come back after it's stuccoed, for the final inspection, you don't have to be here."





They always wait until I say something about the detectors before they will install them.  I usually hear "Oh this jurisdiction requires detectors...can you wait....I have them on the truck...it'll only take me five minutes".  Even when I tell them at the rough inspection, they still don't do it...maybe they are banking on getting a different inspector that might miss it.  They do the same thing with the labels and that plaque.

I guess he showed me.  Since I couldn't get the door open, I couldn't see the labels.  Okay angry little man lets do better next time.


----------



## ICE

My office manager is damned determined to allow a C-46 Solar Contractor a permit to install service upgrades.  The head of the electrical section has said absolutely not but many of the satellite office managers don't pay any attention to the el. section head.  When they are given an office to run, it goes straight to their heads.  All of the sudden, they know what's best for everybody, every time, in every situation.  They don't believe me when I tell them that these outfits don't know Jack Shlt.

A stumbling block for these managers is that they are all civil engineers.  So who knows better than a civil engineer?  They think the Shlt out of it and can't be reasoned with.


----------



## jdfruit

Here is a "reason" that the Civil Engineer can be challenged. "Have you considered your legal obligation to follow state laws that if you intentionally ignore them you are committing criminal misdemeanor?" Civil service employees sign a statement upon entering employment that they will obey all state laws and enforce those that are required of their position.


----------



## mtlogcabin

http://www.berding-weil.net/articles/public-agency-protection-in-building-permit-process-myth.php


----------



## ICE

The hole that the red wire passes through is a problem.  The whole thing is listed.





Here it is with the cover in place.





I described it as a fatal flaw


----------



## ICE

This is a listed lay-in lug.  There is a specific torque in the installation instructions for the mounting hardware.





One small problem is that a socket can't be used.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

They should make them with a snap-bolt that will sever when they hit a certain torque. Automatically tells you if it's correctly tightened.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> They should make them with a snap-bolt that will sever when they hit a certain torque. Automatically tells you if it's correctly tightened.Brent.


That makes too much sense to gain traction in the solar industry.


----------



## conarb

California is finally being forced to do something about these solar scams:

                                                                            Originally Posted by *California Contractors License Board Newsletter*



> CSLB is now receiving *three times* the number of complaints
> 
> involving solar contracting than any other type of licensed
> 
> contracting. Consumers who file a solar-related complaint with
> 
> CSLB most commonly claim that energy savings claims did not
> 
> match what had been promised, or that companies that handle sales
> 
> and installation took government rebates meant for them.
> 
> This is a common theme among those who work in the field and
> 
> those who help regulate it. “With all the sales pitches claiming
> 
> everything is free and Wall Street financing most of the systems, it is
> 
> very common to see production not matching what was promised,”
> 
> said Pete Gregson, whose Advance Power Inc. solar business outside
> 
> of Ukiah manufactures and installs solar equipment. Gregson,
> 
> who also serves as a subject matter expert (SME) for CSLB, urged
> 
> contractors to make sure their solar projects produce the amount
> 
> of power they claim, taking into account the variables of design,
> 
> equipment, installation, and site location. ¹


As the true-up bills come in it's obvious this isn't working, I  think I'll go to the next Board meeting and propose that they make all  contractors installing solar put the amount of savings in the contract  and put up a $1 million bond guaranteeing those savings so defrauded  people have a way to recoup their losses.  Too bad we can't make the building departments pay too for aiding and abetting this scam.

¹ http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/New...er_2014-15.pdf


----------



## tmurray

ICE said:
			
		

> That makes too much sense to gain traction in the solar industry.


We have those. They're called tension control bolts. You generally see them on large commercial jobs and it alleviates the requirement for someone to come around after and check to make sure the torque on the bolts is what is required.


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> California is finally being forced to do something about these solar scams:                                                                            Originally Posted by *California Contractors License Board Newsletter*
> 
> As the true-up bills come in it's obvious this isn't working, I  think I'll go to the next Board meeting and propose that they make all  contractors installing solar put the amount of savings in the contract  and put up a $1 million bond guaranteeing those savings so defrauded  people have a way to recoup their losses.  Too bad we can't make the building departments pay too for aiding and abetting this scam.
> 
> ¹ http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/New...er_2014-15.pdf


But that's the issue right? You have people who are not qualified to calculate how much energy will be produced in these systems selling them and misleading their customers. This is no different than the weekend warrior who builds a deck for their neighbor and are paid in beer. Next winter the deck falls off the house because it was not installed correctly and there were no inspections because the "contractor" didn't bother to pull the permit. The difference is how the government is subsidizing it. Governments (both here in Canada and in the US) subsidize fossil fuels, but do so in the extraction and refining process. Renewables should be the same way; subsidies should be for building factories and research, not to end users.


----------



## jdfruit

"Too bad we can't make the building departments pay too for aiding and abetting this scam." (conarb)

Given the CA legislation to "grease" the process (solar companies are the very squeaky wheel with Sacto), the building departments are not aiding and abetting, just doing their ministerial duty as required by law. Unfortunately the CSLB doesn't have enough people in investigation/enforcement to cover the over promised energy savings "scam". It will take a large consumer group knocking on doors or a class action lawsuit to get the legislators to recognize the problem and maybe do something about it. There are other significant issues involved as well; Ownership of the system, maintenance needs over time, and contractor competency to actually perform the work.

We can continue to beat this horse, but let's not clog up ICE's thread. Anyone interested in a separate thread?


----------



## MASSDRIVER

tmurray said:
			
		

> But that's the issue right? You have people who are not qualified to calculate how much energy will be produced in these systems selling them and misleading their customers.


They are qualified. If most people knew the reality it would be a dying industry. People are being convinced, as we speak, to put solar arrays on their roofs in the Sunset District of San Francisco. It's so foggy there those folks don't even know what the Sun is. It's just a hot thing they heard rumors of that might exist.

The City at one point wanted to put arrays on a city reservoir that covers 2 square blocks. I don't know if someone smart ever came along to tell the idiots it wont work. I doubt it.

But don't fool yourself. It's outright deception most of the time.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> People are being convinced, as we speak, to put solar arrays on their roofs in the Sunset District of San Francisco. It's so foggy there those folks don't even know what the Sun is. It's just a hot thing they heard rumors of that might exist.


On a similar vein, about 15 years ago when the retrofit window scam was in full swing, the license board sent me over to see a woman in San Francisco, when I went into the home I saw an elderly black woman sitting in a chair covered in a heavy shawl, she had replaced good quality aluminum windows with cheap PVC dual pane windows.  I asked her why she did it and she said: "I just wanted to be toasty warm.", the cold air was blowing right through the cheap sliding windows.  I had recently taken a one-day PG&E course from one of the authors of the AAMA InstallationMasters training manual, I called him right there from my cellphone telling him about the wind blowing through the windows.  He said: "Of course she's colder, she lives in cold foggy San Francisco, she has blocked out her solar heat gain."  I responded: "Shouldn't people in San Francisco be told that installing dual pane windows with the wrong coatings is going to actually increase their utility bills?" He said: "Of course not, if we can get everybody in the state to replace their windows we can conserve 2% statewide, we can't go dividing the state up into micro-climates, and the manufactures have to make and sell a one-size-fits-all window."

With the solar panel scam we are seeing the same thing we saw with the dual pane window scam, and the building inspectors did and are doing nothing about it.  The least you can do knowing it to be a scam is to turn down everything you can and make it as diccicult as you can, if you make it hard enough they may even pull their telemarketers from your area.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

conarb said:
			
		

> the building inspectors did and are doing nothing about it.  The least you can do knowing it to be a scam is to turn down everything you can and make it as diccicult as you can, if you make it hard enough they may even pull their telemarketers from your area.


I think ICE is pulling that barge best he can.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I think ICE is pulling that barge best he can.Brent.


Maybe he can do some good and make up for some of the damage he causes people by enforcing the social justice codes.


----------



## ICE

I have been a fly in the solar industry's ointment.  Not for the reason of slowing down the growth or to expose the scam.  I have just been trying to get safe installations.


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> ...He said: "...we can't go dividing the state up into micro-climates...


I worked for almost a year as a certified energy advisor and in my small province we are divided up into 5 climate zones. ASHRAE does the same thing with a significant amount of countries. The problem you're hinting at is what we addressed in our federal energy efficiency program; no two houses are the same, so a qualified energy advisor spends around three hours in a home with the owner to determine what the best options are for the owner. They are paid by owner and the government with the intention that they are unbiased.

Brent, when I say qualified I generally mean that they can actually do calculations based on orientation at the actual site AND provide them to the owners. To me being technically qualified and actually qualified are two different things. I've had a red seal certified carpenter put cantilevered trusses in backwards in a house and I've had a guy with a grade 4 education and no further training do the best framing I've ever seen. And I know everyone on this forum, yourself included, probably has a story like this. Just because someone has a card saying they can do something doesn't mean they actually can or should.


----------



## conarb

tmurray said:
			
		

> Brent, when I say qualified I generally mean that they can actually do calculations based on orientation at the actual site AND provide them to the owners. To me being technically qualified and actually qualified are two different things. I've had a red seal certified carpenter put cantilevered trusses in backwards in a house and I've had a guy with a grade 4 education and no further training do the best framing I've ever seen. And I know everyone on this forum, yourself included, probably has a story like this. Just because someone has a card saying they can do something doesn't mean they actually can or should.


TMurray:

After I installed windows (all Low E 172) in homes and later found that they did not save any energy, notably from a retired PG&E engineer who provided me with a spreadsheet showing energy consumption month by month before and after the installation, he even got government climate data and factored in the temperature differences between the two years, I set up a meeting with the late Dariush Arastech of the Daylighting Institute at the LBL. By then I had read up on the subject and was using the LBL's *Window 5* to engineer my coatings and *RESFEN* to locate the coatings on the proper elevations.  I suggested that by code all contractors be required to perform their computer analyses and inspectors be required to check them, since they wrote the programs it was in their interest that they be mandated.  His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs, my response was that architects are smart enough, his response was that not everyone could afford to hire an architect.


----------



## jdfruit

" His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs,..."

I would expect that a majority of inspectors and a sizable number of contractors could run the program. Whether they are willing is the question. The difficulty will be getting contractors to actually follow what is calculated by the program during purchasing and installation. Then the added complexity for inspection will be a time/cost loss to the building inspection budget for the current fee structure. Charging more for the service will not play in Peoria for contractor groups and political admin decision makers.

Requiring truth in advertising with adequate data to support the claim and having sufficient State enforcement is the best method I can think of to get the "scam" out.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Substitute the word "smart" with "educated".

Lets be accurate here.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

Running RESFEN isn't that hard, but running Window (now) 6.3 is, you have to constantly download libraries as glass changes, then find fabricators who will fabricate to your specifications, to my knowledge no American manufacturers will do that, I've been buying out of Canada for 15 years, we have a new problem importing from Canada, nobody wants to sell in California anymore because of our tax system, I can't even get Cardinal (the biggest IG unit manufacturer in the country) to deliver glass to me from their Hood River Oregon factory, I end up having glass shipped to Canada then the fabricated units shipped by common carrier down here, I have to arrange and pay for all shipping, between California's taxes and our Supreme court decision making window manufacturers strictly liable for all defects, even installation defects, it is hard to get good windows here.

I've linked both RESFEN and Window 6.3 above, why don't you download and install the programs, they are free paid for with out taxes and they are the industry standard, you are an architect who you should be among those smart enough to run the programs, report back and tell us if you are able to specify the proper glass in the proper elevations and if you think the average contractor and inspector can handle it?  Just to give you an idea, on the last home I built here is the specification for one elevation: *Triple-Pane w/LoĒ³-366, LoĒ-179, LoĒ-i81, Argon   0.15*  BTW, on that order my use taxes coming in to California were over $15,000 and they didn't pick up all of them.


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Substitute the word "smart" with "educated".Lets be accurate here.
> 
> Brent.


Brent:

Since you brought it up I'll tell more of that story, when I went to the meeting I brought an engineer friend with me and since I was going into enemy territory I wore a Stanford shirt to assert my dominance.  When I sat down at the conference table Arastech asked: "How did they let you through the gates?", I just told him that I had a security clearance which is old from the 60s when I build some buildings there (including two cyclotrons).  Later when he made the comment above about being smart enough he also said: "Not everyone can afford to pay a Stanford graduate to build their homes", I responded: "Maybe they should, Cal graduates sure aren't smart enough to build them."


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> TMurray:After I installed windows (all Low E 172) in homes and later found that they did not save any energy, notably from a retired PG&E engineer who provided me with a spreadsheet showing energy consumption month by month before and after the installation, he even got government climate data and factored in the temperature differences between the two years, I set up a meeting with the late Dariush Arastech of the Daylighting Institute at the LBL. By then I had read up on the subject and was using the LBL's *Window 5* to engineer my coatings and *RESFEN* to locate the coatings on the proper elevations.  I suggested that by code all contractors be required to perform their computer analyses and inspectors be required to check them, since they wrote the programs it was in their interest that they be mandated.  His response was that contractors and building inspectors weren't smart enough to run the programs, my response was that architects are smart enough, his response was that not everyone could afford to hire an architect.


I wouldn't argue with windows not saving energy. When I was an energy advisor most of the houses I went in to wanted new, more energy efficient windows. The only time I actually recommended window replacement as an energy upgrade were when they had old aluminum slider windows. They were used a lot in the 70s around here and are very leaky and (obviously) the aluminum is a bad thermal bridge. The tend to get a lot of condensation and freeze here in our Canadian winters. The window manufacturers are just really good at marketing. Don't get me wrong, we modeled all the energy upgrades that were recommended or that the client wanted, but when we're talking about switching from quality built wood windows to decent vinyl windows, we're talking about saving a couple dollars a year. When most people saw that they could spend about ten thousand dollars and save less than 50 dollars a year in energy, it doesn't gain much traction.


----------



## conarb

I threw down a challenge above to the contractors, architects, and inspectors, to download and run the window programs necessary to make the windows actually work, so far I've had no takers,  so bringing this full circle back to Tiger's thread on solar energy I've reported before that some people have been defrauded by installing solar panels since their energy bills are higher than before they installed them to say nothing of the costs of leasing or buying them.  It seems prudent to me that an architect designing a structure, a contractor installing the panels, or an AHJ permitting the installation ought to be able to analyze the performance so the owner isn't defrauded.  It is very complicated but here is an engineer who installed them on his own home doing an analysis one year after when he got his first true-up bill.  The is only part of his analysis read the entire process and consider doing it for all customers because there are different utility plans to pick from:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *Understanding true-up billing*
> 
> First, the monthly bill. Where does this $12 come from? It turns out PG&E charges E-6 (TOU) customers a “meter charge” of approximately $0.25 per day. E6 and E-1 both also have a “minimum charge” of approximately $0.15 per day; they don’t explain what this means, but if my reverse engineering of my bills is correct, for NEM customers it’s essentially a placeholder for your usage before they know what your usage is. These fees added together and multiplied by the number of days in a billing cycle yield the approximately $12 amount that I was billed for each month (billing cycles ranged from 28 to 32 days, so the monthly bill ranged from $11.22 to $12.83, with the most common bill being $12.02 for a 30-day billing cycle).
> 
> Second, the usage charges. These are not simple (since they involve both the tiering and TOU calculations), but they are actually decently explained on the monthly NEM statement itself, and with one nitpicky exception8, they’re the same as what you had before you added NEM, and the true-up calculation doesn’t affect them.
> 
> Third, the cumulative usage charge. This one is completely straightforward: add the usage charges for the current true-up period, to date. Each NEM statement shows the current cumulative charge (this amount) and the amount by which it changed (the month’s usage charge), and you can verify that the current cumulative balance is equal to the previous month’s balance plus/minus the current month’s usage charge/credit. However, as mentioned above, this amount will swing one direction and then correct due to seasonal variation,
> 
> Fourth, the true-up amount. This is a simple calculation if you know where it comes from, but PG&E doesn’t explain it, so I had to reverse engineer it, learning to understand the daily meter and minimum charges. What it boils down to is that the $0.15 “minimum charge” is not a real charge once the true-up period is over, but a provisional placeholder: you pay this with each month’s $12 bill, but at the end of the year, when your real usage is known, you get back the provisional amount and pay the real amount. At the end of the year, you take your usage charge/credit, and add the meter charge ($0.25 per day or about $7.50 per monthly bill or $92.33 in a full year9), and that’s what you owe for the year. Except you’ve already paid that meter charge, plus you’ve paid the “minimum” usage charge as a provisional placeholder. So subtract the provisional usage charge ($0.15 per day or about $4.50 per monthly bill or $53.96 in a full year), and you have the amount that’s unpaid, that you must still pay in order to True Up. So, your first 11 bills are for 30-ish days of meter charges and minimum charges, totaling about $12; your 12th bill is for 30-ish days of meter charges, minus 335-ish days of minimum charges, plus your cumulative usage charge for the whole year. In my case, actual usage at the end of the year was $60.22, of which $46.27 had already been paid monthly as that “minimum” charge, so what I’d call the actual true-up component was $13.95; add in $8.07 in meter fees (32 days at $0.25/day) for the final billing period and we have what PG&E calls my true-up bill of $22.02.¹


Are architects, contractors, or building inspectors smart enough to run these calculations?  I have a neighbor who is an engineer, he leased them and has finally received his "true-up" bill, it's a little over $700 for the first year, he pays a little over $200 a month to lease them, so he is now about $258 a month for his electric usage, his prior bill before installing the panels was about $45 a month average, about the same as mine.  Isn't it the job of the AHJ to protect the consumer from these frauds?  If not what is the job of an inspector?

¹ http://blog.metamatt.com/blog/2012/11/09/one-year-of-solar-power/


----------



## Wayne

Solar

If you've got time on your hands, this link is a great read about one man's journey to install solar in Henderson Nevada which happens to be where I live.

http://solarelectirc.blogspot.com/2014/03/in-beginning.html?m=1


----------



## conarb

Thanks for that Wayne, I guess you can't get better solar than in Nevada with 111° temperatures.  I think readers should put Terry's numbers to work in their own location.  BTW, I disagree with him on the cleaning, I'm sure there must be more dust in Henderson than in the Bay Area, but people have contracts here with companies that wash and maintain their panels, maybe if he kept them clean he'd get better numbers.  He mentioned permit but only referred to power company inspection and not building department inspection, I bet from those pictures our own Tiger could tear it apart.


----------



## Wayne

Solar

Dust is a very big issue here and you can dust your house one day and the next day it's dusty again. It's a fact of life in the Las Vegas Valley.

The company that did the work is a medium size organization that does good work at the airport I work at.   The guy in charge of their solar division is a professor at UNLV teaching about solar forv what is worth.

The local power company NV Energy must do a final inspection before net metering can start and the panels can be tied in. The local AHJ does inspections just like other jurisdictions.  This one would be done by the City of Henderson.

Another interesting note is that Nevada law (NRS) restricts solar installs that qualify for net metering to 3% total. Right now the solar industry and NV Energy are fighting it out in the legislature to see if the limit is raised or left alone since Nevada should hit the max this year and that'll make the solar industry fall flat here.

http://m.reviewjournal.com/politics/advocates-accuse-state-nv-energy-anti-solar-bias


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> Isn't it the job of the AHJ to protect the consumer from these frauds?  If not what is the job of an inspector?


Nope. It's my job to make sure it's safe. The last thing anyone wants is for building inspectors to dictate what makes financial sense when it comes to construction. That's what I did when I was an energy advisor. When the federal and state (in my case provincial) government is giving away money for people do do something, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have their own representatives to make sure this money is spent well? This was my job. To make sure tax dollars were well spent. I'd be furious if my tax dollars were given away with no oversight like this.


----------



## conarb

TMurray:

Makes us wonder why Canada can do such a better job than the U.S., I remember on our old Bulletin Board when we were fighting over the fire sprinkler scam, I found a good study by the Canadian National Mortgage Association showing that residential fire sprinklers were a waste of money, showing how the money could be put to much better life saving usage. In the U.S. stakeholders like the industry profiting or various environmental advocacy groups with large sums of money dictate what we do.  In the Great White North do the so-called stakeholders determine what's done?


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> TMurray:Makes us wonder why Canada can do such a better job than the U.S., I remember on our old Bulletin Board when we were fighting over the fire sprinkler scam, I found a good study by the Canadian National Mortgage Association showing that residential fire sprinklers were a waste of money, showing how the money could be put to much better life saving usage. In the U.S. stakeholders like the industry profiting or various environmental advocacy groups with large sums of money dictate what we do.  In the Great White North do the so-called stakeholders determine what's done?


Well, code changes are evaluated by committees that are made up of builders, engineers, industry and the general public. Before it gets there, the code change has to fit in our performance based objectives. I'll reference sprinklers in this case to provide an example; a code change request comes in and is submitted first for technical review. To be eligible for a code change a life safety component must average 3 million dollars per life saved or less(last I heard, but this figure might have changed). Sprinklers based on the CMHC report you referenced were approximately 38 million dollars per life saved. It doesn't meet the technical qualifications then it doesn't even get seen by the committee. The main issue here is the time it takes to evaluate and change the code. We already have a 5 year code cycle and it's unlikely that you get your provision into the next version of the code, so it can be 10 years or more for a code change. For this reason we put into place provisions called "Alternate Solutions", basically a proponent of an alternate means (through new materials or techniques) provides documentation to demonstrate that their solution will meet the minimum performance of the code. As a building inspector all I have to do is ensure they evaluated the correct components (which are stated in the code) and then their solution gets approved. These are handled in house with limited liability on the municipality.

In order to do something better we first have to admit that we might not be the experts that we think we are, a problem everyone has likely faced in their life. My grandfather had a good saying about this; "The dumbest person on this planet has something to teach the smartest, but he'll only listen if he has the wisdom to do so.". The big issue we faced was with politicians. They would rather give all the money to the public than spend a portion on experts to provide guidance. The reasoning is that the more money they gave out the more votes they could get. The general public and good contractors saw the energy evaluation service as invaluable. We gave unbiased advice to home owners and confirmed what knowledgeable contractors were telling clients. At the end of the day, funding got cut so the program ended. Still, it did have some minor flaws, but was the best system we could get in place.


----------



## ICE

ICE said:
			
		

> This one is a doozy.  The kid that met me said I was there for a lath inspection around a new service box.  I said that I don't recall approving the service so I am surprised that lath has been installed.  He showed me a job card upon which I signed for rough electrical.  I also wrote "rough on roof".This is under a patio cover.  Most of the back yard is patio cover....I'd guess it's between 6 and 8 hundred square feet.  There's six ceiling fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The owner was there cleaning the granite counters.  He was completely nonplussed when hearing "It can't be there".  So much so that I figure he must know somebody.
> 
> The kid asked me "How does an electrician who's supposed to know the code do something this wrong".  Oh what I wanted to say.....


Well it's four months later and they called for another inspection.  They changed things up and now there is a sub-panel where the main was located.





The service has been moved to a 26" wide walkway.





The drop is about 3' above the neighbor's roof.





When I wrote the first correction about working clearance back in January the owner called and chewed me out.  He said that Edison told him where to put the service so I have no say in the matter.  He was plenty upset.  Then someone from the solar company did the same thing only he was way more upset.  I'm gonna get screamed at tomorrow for sure.  Probably in person.


----------



## ICE

The label says that the main breaker can't exceed 200 amps.





On the right hand side of the same label is the panel rating of 225 amps.





Can anyone tell why the main for a 225 amp panel is only allowed to be 200 amp.


----------



## jdfruit

2013 Ca Elect Code 408.36(A) - a "snap switch" includes circuit breakers (404.1)


----------



## ICE

404.1 says that it applies to circuit breakers that are used as switches.  That is not the case with a residential service panel.  A circuit breaker can be used as a switch but not all circuit breakers are switches.

I talked to an Eaton engineer and was told that the 200 amp restriction has to do with heat dissipation.  This panel is rated for a 70 amp solar contribution if the solar is added at the far end of the bus bar.

Thanks jdfruit.  There's plenty in the electrical code that I don't know.


----------



## ICE

There are 22 panels laying on the roof waiting to go on the racking.  There is a lay-in lug installed wrong on each one.  You can see the asphalt on the setscrew.





The torn up roof is three weeks old.


----------



## ICE

I would be out of line to tell you which Solar Company did this.  I can't even give you an itty bitty clue.

I apologize for the blurry photo.  It is a picture of my iphone screen because the array is on a second floor tile roof and I sent a kid with his phone to get a picture and then text me that picture.  I am amazed at what we can do with our phones.


----------



## Span

To post #223

200A is the panel main breaker, 225A is the panel busbar rating.

From 11NEC 705.12.D.2  Bus bar rating

info related to solar feed into centerfeed panel

http://www.nmsu.edu/~tdi/pdf-resources/IAEI%20Jul-Aug%202014.pdf


----------



## Span

Square D 125A panel with 225A busbar ratingNEC 705.12.D.2Supply power to a busbar or conductor shall not exceed 120% of the rating of busbar or conductor.Attached is the new panel from Square D for solar installation.

View attachment 1207


View attachment 1207


/monthly_2015_07/572953d7ce1ca_001(2).jpg.7daf1fb89796f6bf15fa62ec0a9f4312.jpg


----------



## ICE

As bad as this service upgrade is the damnable part is that they removed the dead front and left it unattended.





The corrections started with the clothes dryer in the way and ended with starting over because this cabinet is mounted over a hole in the wall.

I tried to call the contractor and tell them to never leave these open with nobody there.  Nobody would answer the phone.  So I finally got through to the solar company HQ which is located in Utah.  I was assured that a VP in charge of construction would get back to me.  That didn't happen.  I am still learning contractor speak and just found out that what he meant was "We don't give a rats :butt"


----------



## ICE

This is a rubber raceway from the picture above.  It is flimsy and collapses with just a little pressure.  When it comes to inspecting work done by a solar company, I always expect to discover the unexpected.





Everything they do is half-assed.


----------



## ICE

I was there for a solar final inspection.  When I was there for the rough inspection there was a coroner's van in front of the service panel because the woman that lived there was expired.  So I didn't get a look at the service until today.  Right away I wondered out loud if the service is a bootleg.  The solar contractor assured me that the first thing that they do is make sure that there are no bootlegs on the property.













I assured the contractor that he missed this.


----------



## ICE

That's where the owner wanted it so they wouldn't have to see it.  The solar contractor said "Not a problem folks, we can put it wherever you want".


----------



## conarb

Great Britain is ending it's solar program, the wealthy took advantage  of it and it's costing the poor, the utilities don't sell power, they  install and maintain "poles and wires" somebody's got to pay for the  poles and wires.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Britain's  solar boom is over after ministers announced they would offer virtually  no subsidies for people to install panels on their homes.In  a surprise move, ministers on Thursday said that they plan to slash the  amount of money given to families who put solar panels on their homes.
> 
> Under the new proposals, the amount paid to homeowners under the “feed-in tariff” from  next year will fall by nearly 90 per cent. Experts said that it will  lower the payments to households by around £192 a year.
> 
> The  Coalition government introduced a generous subsidy scheme to encourage  households to install solar panels, triggering a boom that far exceeded  ministers’ expectations.
> 
> Tens of thousands of people were trained to install the panels and around 700,000 families had them put on their homes to take advantage of the subsidies.
> 
> The annual cost of the scheme is now estimated to be in excess of £800  million a year - almost twice the level ministers originally  anticipated, as a result of the early boom.
> 
> Critics say the  scheme, which was heavily pushed by energy firms, enables wealthy  families to rake in subsidies paid for by many who are already  struggling with their energy bills.
> 
> The energy department on  Thursday insisted said that households that have already had panels  installed will not see their subsidies cut.
> 
> However, campaigners  warned that the cut will mean that households will no longer benefit  financially if they install solar panels, effectively destroying the  domestic renewables industry.
> 
> Mr Cameron was in 2013 criticised  after it emerged that he had told aides to “get rid of the green crap”  which was adding money to homeowners’ energy bills.¹


This should give the Tiger some breathing room if we follow suit, it appears that over half his poor quality work posts are solar.

¹ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/solarpower/11829471/Ministers-signal-the-end-of-Britains-solar-revolution.html


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> Great Britain is ending it's solar program, the wealthy took advantage  of it and it's costing the poor, the utilities don't sell power, they  install and maintain "poles and wires" somebody's got to pay for the  poles and wires.This should give the Tiger some breathing room if we follow suit, it appears that over half his poor quality work posts are solar.
> 
> ¹ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/solarpower/11829471/Ministers-signal-the-end-of-Britains-solar-revolution.html


It's not half.....now that my area has been cut I don't have many solar jobs.  I am against subsidies in general.  It is my money that supports tha solar industry. Any industry that will dry up unless they get their hands on my money should fail.


----------



## ICE

If Toyota made PV racking....





A plan checker showed me this lug and I said that it can't be used.  The shop teacher didn't believe the plan checker because there are about twenty of them mounted on the rail.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> A plan checker showed me this lug and I said that it can't be used. The shop teacher didn't believe the plan checker because there are about twenty of them mounted on the rail.


But...... that shop teacher is teaching the next generation of tradesmen, inspectors, even architects and engineers.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> But...... that shop teacher is teaching the next generation of tradesmen, inspectors, even architects and engineers.


By the time that we are done, he should have a pretty good understanding of solar. I have to teach one person how to do it one time.  There's not a lot of satisfaction in that.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE.

Is that a steel to aluminum connection with No-Ox goop? not sure what the Toyota reference means? Toyota's "Bonafide", there in NASCAR ya know!


----------



## conarb

Tiger and other California inspectors:

At 8:00 this morning Solar City arrived at the house across the street and started installing solar panels on the front of the house, fortunately I don't have to look at them because I look at the side of the house.  I left at 11:30 and the same guys that installed the panels were installing the service, I returned about 3:00 and they were done with the Solar City sign in the yard.  There is no evidence that they ever got a permit, but it's highly unlikely that they did from the looks of it, and the coordination with the AHJs required if one crew can do two per day.  It seems to me that AHJs are aiding and abetting these illegal practices by turning their collective heads the other way.

*Solar City shows 2 expired licenses*, the yard sign violates the B&P Code by not showing a license number, but does give a website of jlandsman@solarcity.com, going there you are taken directly to Solar City's website that shows no contractors license.  Looking up a Landsman or J Landsman on the license board website there is no such licensed contractor in California.

Are you aware of the fact that you are required to notify the State License Board if uncertified electricians are performing electrical work, even licensed C-10 contractors cannot hire uncertified electricians?

*Go here to read the law*.


----------



## ICE

conarb,

The license classification for a solar contractor is C-46.  The code says that PV shall be installed by qualified persons.  The code definition of a qualified person is:



> Qualified Person. One who has skills and knowledgerelated to the construction and operation of the electrical
> 
> equipment and installations and has received safety
> 
> training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved.


No electrician required.  We do not allow a C-46 to perform a service upgrade.

SolarCity: #888104

        C46 - SOLAR

        B - GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR

        C10 - ELECTRICAL

        A - GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR

        C20 - WARM-AIR HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> conarb,The license classification for a solar contractor is C-46.  The code says that PV shall be installed by qualified persons.  The code definition of a qualified person is:
> 
> No electrician required.  We do not allow a C-46 to perform a service upgrade.
> 
> SolarCity: #888104
> 
> C46 - SOLAR
> 
> B - GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR
> 
> C10 - ELECTRICAL
> 
> A - GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
> 
> C20 - WARM-AIR HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING


Tiger:

The way the law reads now B, C10, C46 and any other contractors cannot do electrical unless the actual workmen doing the work are certified electricians, that means even our man in a kilt has to hire a certified electrician do hook up any electrical, even he he hires a C10 he has to be sure the contractor is using certified electricians.    I linked it for you  but since you didn't understand I'll print it out:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *CSLB Zero Tolerance Policy In Effect for Non-Compliant Electricians *
> 
> Per Board direction at its June 11, 2013 meeting, this bulletin is being reissued.
> 
> SACRAMENTO — The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) established a zero-tolerance enforcement policy in 2010 and now issues legal action against any C-10 Electrical contractor who willfully employs an uncertified electrician to perform work as an electrician.
> 
> CSLB is legally required to open an investigation and initiate disciplinary action against the contractor (which may include license suspension or revocation) within 60 days of receipt of a referral or complaint from the Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS).
> 
> *Labor Code section 108.2 stipulates that anyone who performs work as an electrician for C-10 Electrical contractors shall hold an electrical certification card issued by DAS; DAS is required by Labor Code section 108.2 to report violations to CSLB.*
> 
> *Electricians are defined as those who engage in the connection of electrical devices for C-10 contractors.* It is CSLB’s position that electrical work must be performed by either a state-licensed or a certified electrician. An indentured apprentice or state-registered electrician trainee may also perform electrical work if supervised by a state-certified electrician. Trenching, concrete, framing, and other work that does not involve connecting electrical devices may be performed by noncertified workers.
> 
> Learn more about electrician certification by visiting the Electrician Certification Program website.


They did this with fire sprinklers too, even sprinkler contractors have to hire certified sprinkler fitters.


----------



## ICE

Not in my jungle.

I'd be happy with Brent's electrical work but he'd have to stand on a street corner to get the job.  I can see him out there in his dress....waving his hammer.

So conarb, I am way familiar with the Ca rule but trust me on this, virtually no AHJ enforces that. At least not in residential and few if any commercial.  I have enforced it on large projects and the contractors were pleased about that.  They made the effort to get it and nobody ever asks them for it.

Also note that the law is for C-10 license holders. C-46 and B contractors aren't mentioned.  Homeowners can take out the permits and hire whomever they choose.

Another thing about SolarCity is that they've never seen a service panel that they didn't like.

Around here, SolarCity subs out the service upgrades....to the lowest bidder.  But usually not until I force an upgrade.  Some of these guys are 100 miles from the job.  They get plenty of windshield time completing corrections.

SolarCity owns Sacramento. SB 2188 mandates that as of 09-30-15 we can only do one inspection.  That would be a final inspection.  It's hard to see much once the modules are installed.  That's not such a big deal with a mounting system like SolarCity's Zep but what a dumb idea for all of the little outfits that use the other thirty or so rack companies.

I have studied UL2703 and many listing reports.  The solar industry is like no other....and not in a good way.

A few years ago SolarCity went to the top and threatened to boycott my area unless I was banned from inspecting their jobs.  Apparently they were bluffing.  Since they bought the Zep Solar company their roof top work has improved dramatically but oh those service upgrades.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> So conarb, I am way familiar with the Ca rule but trust me on this, virtually no AHJ enforces that. At least not in residential and few if any commercial. I have enforced it on large projects and the contractors were pleased about that. They made the effort to get it and nobody ever asks them for it.


Well here they apparently don't enforce the permit requirement, at least you do that, looking at the wall there was no service change since the old recessed panel with the meter socket is still there, but there are 4 new ugly panels surface mounted on the wall.

So then you know a state statute (just like the building code) is being violated and the work is being done by an unlicensed contractor you don't feel obligated to enforce those statutes.   You require all permittees to provide evidence of Workers' Comp don't you?   Gosh, we have inspectors here who want to enforce federal law like the ADA, a discriminatory law, yet you don't feel the need to enforce state statutes designed to protect the health and safety of people.  I guess you guys decide which laws you want to enforce, you'll cost someone thousands of dollars if lines and signs aren't the right colors or places, yet you won't enforce the statutes that are your job to enforce.


----------



## ICE

Ever heard of a Writ of Mandamus?


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> Ever heard of a Writ of Mandamus?


You suggesting that I sue you and get a writ to force you to enforce the law?


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> You suggesting that I sue you and get a writ to force you to enforce the law?


Well you are retired and an attorney.  You could start with San Francisco.  After you succeed in shutting down construction, the State will repeal the law.


----------



## steveray

CA...WE would have to see the unlicensed person doing the work, and even then we can shoo them off the job, but they can/will come back after we leave and finish. We have no teeth in that area, it is Consumer Protection at the State level that handles that and I think there may be about 6 people for the whole State to enforce licensing...All I can care about is the work is being done to code. Until the license holders get together and complain enough to the State to drive a change (more money for more State inspectors or a requirement for the licensed person to be present for inspection) nothing will be any different.

"Another thing about SolarCity is that they've never seen a service panel that they didn't like."

Had them hook up to a sub panel with absolutely no grounding back to the main, and one installed directly over a sink...


----------



## MASSDRIVER

That cslb link pertains to certified electricians working for the c-10, not a"b". If there is another section, please provide.

Brent


----------



## conarb

steveray said:
			
		

> CA...WE would have to see the unlicensed person doing the work, and even then we can shoo them off the job, but they can/will come back after we leave and finish. We have no teeth in that area, it is Consumer Protection at the State level that handles that and I think there may be about 6 people for the whole State to enforce licensing...All I can care about is the work is being done to code. Until the license holders get together and complain enough to the State to drive a change (more money for more State inspectors or a requirement for the licensed person to be present for inspection) nothing will be any different."Another thing about SolarCity is that they've never seen a service panel that they didn't like."
> 
> Had them hook up to a sub panel with absolutely no grounding back to the main, and one installed directly over a sink...


The point is that Solar City is the biggest solar contractor in the country and they are running around in some cases not even getting permits, and I think in all cases not employing licensed contractors to perform the work.  I don't know about other states but in California the building department is required to obtain evidence of Workers' compensation insurance before issuing a permit (homeowners and contractors can exempt themselves if they swear under penalty of perjury that they do not employ anyone or only employ licensed contractors), Solar City gets around these requirements by either not getting permits or employing unlicensed contractors that can't get permits.

I realize that you have to catch them in the act, but from what I saw next door the average 1,500 square foot house takes between 5 and 7 hours to do.  What's the solution to stop this fraud? Electrical is life safety, unlike many other things you enforce these days like ADA, low flow faucets, air sealing, etc.  BTW, billions in tax payer money is going to support this, as well as increased rates for others (PG&E has a proposal in now to increase rates to cover their losses due to solar, utilities are poles and wires the electrons are free, PG&E is a delivery service not even equipped to store and over 90% of solar (not consumed by the customer) is wasted.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> That cslb link pertains to certified electricians working for the c-10, not a"b". If there is another section, please provide.Brent


I realize that and it's an error in the say the statute was drafted, if you notice the CSLB  notice I provided is a republication becasue contractors weren't getting the message, I've talked to them about this saying it doesn't make any sense to force electrical contractors to hire certified electricians then let general contractors hire uncertified electricians, bad contractors will just stop subcontracting electrical to licensed electricians and pick up their "electricians" at the Home Depot parking lot like the solar contractors are now apparently doing.  They say they are working on getting the language changed to apply to all contractors.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

And that was my point.

I froze a cslb rep in thier tracks with that. Of course I was told that was not the intent. Cry me a river then.

Nobody, and mean nobody, is going to hire an electrician at $200 an hour  to wire up a small remodel. Plus it makes no sense. Conversely, I'm ok getting my own certification provided I'm allowed to just take a test and pass it, rather than adopt a new career just to obtain an electrical certificate of liability, which is all it is.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

Solar is harming the poor, for those who care about them, rich people could care less what their electricity bill is.





			
				\ said:
			
		

> Despite the
> 
> uncertainty surrounding human influence over climate, states like California have taken huge steps to (supposedly) tackle the problem. By 2020 it will require  one-third of its electricity generation to come from “renewable” energy like solar and wind in order to decrease its carbon emissions.But according to new research by the Manhattan Institute, these policies will make electricity prices soar. Author Jonathan A. Lesser even says the Golden State’s scheme will create “energy poverty” for at least one million households, meaning that energy costs will exceed 10 percent of a family’s income.
> 
> 
> One way to increase poverty is to decrease jobs, the result of Spain’s
> 
> 
> aggressive push towards renewable energy. Each green job “created” (at a  minimum price of over $618,000) destroyed 2.2 jobs elsewhere, greatly  contributing to the country’s economic demise.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> ​Otherwise one can only watch powerlessly as one of the richest states in the country regulates itself into poverty. If the Canadian province of Ontario is any indication, then it will likely cause businesses to leave when they can’t afford skyrocketing energy prices.It’s happened in Europe. It’s happened in Canada. Don’t think it can’t happen in America.¹


And you guys stand by and watch this going on, not even collecting your permit fees from it.


​ 

¹ http://watchdog.org/235342/californias-energy-policies-hurt-poor/


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> And that was my point. I froze a cslb rep in thier tracks with that. Of course I was told that was not the intent. Cry me a river then.
> 
> Nobody, and mean nobody, is going to hire an electrician at $200 an hour  to wire up a small remodel. Plus it makes no sense. Conversely, I'm ok getting my own certification provided I'm allowed to just take a test and pass it, rather than adopt a new career just to obtain an electrical certificate of liability, which is all it is.
> 
> Brent.


Brent:

As we know, everything government employees do they **** up, but maybe they'll get it right, eventually. If the ICC can't even write reasonable understandable codes, and they are a NGO, how do you expect the legislature to write reasonable statutes?  I wouldn't touch electrical, actually I don't do anything anymore, if there is a house fire and it's blamed on electrical you are toast even with that wording, the intent is obvious to a reasonable person under the "reasonable person standard".

Stick to something that you know and are good at, you are coming down here to Pleasanton this weekend to throw the caber aren't you?  That mountain man from Iceland is going to be here to challenge you, he's 6'9 and 480 pounds, instead of throwing dwarfs and cabers how about we warm up throwing building inspectors?  ¹

We've got to get ready for the revolution, there will be lots of guys in kilts all over the place, no girlie men in sight.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28744712/great-scot:-the-mountain-set-to-take-on-challengers-at-the-scottish-games-in-pleasanton


----------



## steveray

Conarb....You aren't actually criticizing a company for "capitalizing" on the flaws in the system are you? Isn't that what makes America great?


----------



## conarb

steveray said:
			
		

> Conarb....You aren't actually criticizing a company for "capitalizing" on the flaws in the system are you? Isn't that what makes America great?


Never thought of it that way Steve, just look at the money you can make if you ignore codes and laws.  I was once informing an owner about my progress getting a permit for his new home, at one point I said something like: "And then I met with the CBO.....", when I was done he asked: "What does CBO stand for, Chief Building Obstructionist?  Is that Solar City's secret, get taxpayer money and stay away from the obstructionists? Who needs permits anyway, Solar City doesn't bother, they do nothing but eat away profits, who needs licensed contractors, the work can be done by slave labor just waiting at Home Depot, no need to fund those silly social security taxes, unemployment taxes, no need to carry insurance since if they get hurt they've got no right to sue and can just go back to Mexico to live their lives out.  The only cops on the beat controlling this are the inspectors, and they don't give a damn as long as they get their salaries and benefits. So what if someone gets electrocuted, we have an overpopulation problem and human life is the most renewable resource on the planet, if there are so many of them who cares, they just keep reproducing anyway?


----------



## steveray

Exactly.....Exploit the working class, take what you can and give nothing back!....Works for Wal-Mart...


----------



## conarb

steveray said:
			
		

> Exactly.....Exploit the working class, take what you can and give nothing back!....Works for Wal-Mart...


Global warming is the best device ever devised to tax the working class, carbon taxes reach everyone rich or poor, and they are peanuts to the rich, but sometimes force the poor to eat dog food if they want to drive to work or heat their homes.


----------



## ICE

It has been years since we have had a wet winter.  Next winter is predicted to bring lots of rain.





Roofs like this may be a problem.





This is speculation on my part but I think that the average roofing contractor is not going want this work.

If the roof isn't shot but is leaking at a penetration the roofer faces a tough time pinpointing which penetration needs a pail of Henry.  This roof has solar on both sides of the roof and there are 36 penetrations.

If the roof is shot, and many of them are, my AHJ requires that a permit to R&R the solar equipment and the permit shall be obtained by a licensed C-10(electrical contractor) or C-46(solar contractor).  If they have the original plans for the solar we will accept them.  If there are no original plans, new plans shall be created.  This will add several thousand dollars to the cost of a new roof.  A lot of solar will end up being sold on Craig's List or in a landfill.


----------



## ICE

In the shadows of the solar water heater and chimney there will be PV modules.  I pointed out that the modules don't work well in the shade and the workman explained that after 3:00pm the Sun will shine, which I thought was great news.


----------



## Pcinspector1

POST #258, exactly what I envisioned. Issues with re-roofing

We are being asked here to streamline the process of getting a permit, apparently some of u's are putting up road blocks for the solar industry. Shame on you little buggers!

A thought I had a long time ago was how you going to re-roof your little abode with all that crap on your roof. Are you gonna hire an electrician to remove the array?

I'm sure the POCO is trying to figure out how they can make up for the lost revenue, you know they need a new bright white truck that seats six employees.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> We are being asked here to streamline the process of getting a permit, apparently some of u's are putting up road blocks for the solar industry. Shame on you little buggers!


Who is asking you to "streamline"?


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> Who is asking you to "streamline"?


Here in California it is the State.  Senate Bill 2188 mandates that there be a 24hr turn around on plan check and we are allowed just one inspection.  We may also stop inspecting smoke and co detectors and accept a statement instead.


----------



## mtlogcabin

conarb said:
			
		

> Who is asking you to "streamline"?


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2188


----------



## ICE

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2188


As usual you are right on top of it.  I wonder if there are any other States that are following this path?


----------



## Pcinspector1

conarb said:
			
		

> Who is asking you to "streamline"?


US DOE's SunShot Initiative, silly!

Goal is to develop best management practices for reducing the "soft cost" of solar systems. They want cities to follow guidelines and be uniform in enforcement so they can get more junk on the residential roof.

They want permit checklist, zoning issues cleaned up.

Then when you've cleaned up the process your city is listed with all the other trained pig cities as a: Solar Ready participant. Yea!


----------



## tmurray

ICE said:
			
		

> If they have the original plans for the solar we will accept them.


Wouldn't your office have the plans that were approved that could be provided to the owner?


----------



## ICE

tmurray said:
			
		

> Wouldn't your office have the plans that were approved that could be provided to the owner?


We don't retain residential plans.


----------



## Pcinspector1

IRC 106.5 Retention of construction plans to be retained for 180 days from date of completion or as required by state or local laws.

This makes me think I can purge my files?


----------



## tmurray

ICE said:
			
		

> We don't retain residential plans.


Oh. We're required to retain records for 20 years.


----------



## mark handler

*Only required to manitain Non Residential*

CA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

SECTION 19850-19853

19850.  The building department of every city or county shall maintain an official copy, which may be on microfilm or other type of photographic copy, of the plans of every building, *during the life of the building*, for which the department issued a building permit.

   "Building department" means the department, bureau, or officer charged with the enforcement of laws or ordinances regulating the erection, construction, or alteration of buildings.

   Except for plans of a common interest development as defined in Section 4100 or 6534 of the Civil Code, plans need not be filed for:

   (a) Single or multiple dwellings not more than two stories and basement in height.

   (b) Garages and other structures appurtenant to buildings described under subdivision (a).

   © Farm or ranch buildings.

   (d) Any one-story building where the span between bearing walls does not exceed 25 feet. The exemption in this subdivision does not,  however, apply to a steel frame or concrete building.

19851.  (a) The official copy of the plans maintained by the building department of the city or county provided for under Section 19850 shall be open for inspection only on the premises of the building department as a public record. The copy may not be duplicated in whole or in part except (1) with the written permission, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld as specified in subdivision (f), of the certified, licensed or registered professional or his or her successor, if any, who signed the original documents and the written permission of the original or current owner of the building, or, if the building is part of a common interest development, with the written permission of the board of directors or governing body of the association established to manage the common interest development, or (2) by order of a proper court or upon the request of any state agency.

   (b) Any building department of a city or county, which is requested to duplicate the official copy of the plans maintained by the building department, shall request written permission to do so from the certified, licensed, or registered professional, or his or her successor, if any, who signed the original documents and from (1) the original or current owner of the building or (2), if the building is part of a common interest development, from the board of

directors or other governing body of the association established to manage the common interest development.

   © The building department shall also furnish the form of an affidavit to be completed and signed by the person requesting to duplicate the official copy of the plans, which contains provisions stating all of the following:

   (1) That the copy of the plans shall only be used for the maintenance, operation, and use of the building.

   (2) That drawings are instruments of professional service and are incomplete without the interpretation of the certified, licensed, or registered professional of record.

   (3) That subdivision (a) of Section 5536.25 of the Business and Professions Code states that a licensed architect who signs plans, specifications, reports, or documents shall not be responsible for damage caused by subsequent changes to, or use of, those plans, specifications, reports, or documents where the subsequent changes or uses, including changes or uses made by state or local governmental agencies, are not authorized or approved by the licensed architect who originally signed the plans, specifications, reports, or documents, provided that the architectural service rendered by the architect who signed the plans, specifications, reports, or documents was not also a proximate cause of the damage.

   (d) The request by the building department to a licensed, registered, or certified professional may be made by the building department sending a registered or certified letter to the licensed, registered, or certified professional requesting his or her permission to duplicate the official copy of the plans and sending with the registered or certified letter, a copy of the affidavit furnished by the building department which has been completed and signed by the person requesting to duplicate the official copy of the  plans. The registered or certified letters shall be sent by the building department to the most recent address of the licensed, registered, or certified professional available from the California State Board of Architectural Examiners.

   (e) The governing body of the city or county may establish a fee to be paid by any person who requests the building department of the city or county to duplicate the official copy of any plans pursuant to this section, in an amount which it determines is reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the building department pursuant to this section.

   (f) The certified, licensed, or registered professional's refusal to permit the duplication of the plans is unreasonable if, upon request from the building department, the professional does either of the following:

   (1) Fails to respond to the local building department within 30 days of receipt by the professional of the request. However, if the building department determines that professional is unavailable to respond within 30 days of receipt of the request due to serious illness, travel, or other extenuating circumstances, the time period shall be extended by the building department to allow the professional adequate time to respond, as determined to be appropriate to the individual circumstance, but not to exceed 60 days.

   (2) Refuses to give his or her permission for the duplication of the plans after receiving the signed affidavit and registered or certified letter specified in subdivisions © and (d).

19852.  The governing body of a county or city, including a charter city, may prescribe such fees as will pay the expenses incurred bythe building department of such city or county in maintaining the official copy of the plans of buildings for which it has issued a building permit, but the fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required by the building department in maintaining the official copy of the plans of buildings for which it has issued a building permit.

The fees shall be imposed pursuant to Section 66016 of the Government Code.

19853.  This chapter shall not apply to any building containing a bank, other financial institution, or public utility.


----------



## ICE

Each of the spots is a pile of shlt.  The tiles are nailed.  Thank goodness for that.....I hate walking on this type of roof.....waiting for a tile to slide out and dump me.





A closer look tells me that it's not nails that I see but perhaps a wire.  Whatever it is there appears to be a hole for that purpose.

Have any of you seen flying pigs?


----------



## TheCommish

looks like asbestos roof shingles


----------



## conarb

Hey Tiger, you better start checking the labels on the solar panels, in Texas a company has been caught using Chinese Crap panels and putting their "Made in USA" label on them, they are a fire hazard:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> A Texas solar company must pay $8.5 million for importing unsafe panels from China and falsely labeling the items as U.S. made.
> 
> The Texas Attorney General’s Office on Monday announced the penalties and permanent injunction against 1 SolTech Inc. The filed for bankruptcy last year amid the 2013 lawsuit.
> 
> The company and three executives agreed to stop misrepresentations on origin and certification of solar panels labeled “Made in the USA.”
> 
> Investigators determined the China-made panels, including some installed at American military bases and airports, represent a fire hazard for not conforming to U.S. safety standards. American-made materials were required to be used for the taxpayer-funded projects.
> 
> The AG’s office says 1 SolTech will pay $5.8 million in penalties and legal fees, plus $2.7 million to customers.¹


If a house burns down and someone dies because of defective Chinese panels should the inspector be liable?  How is an inspector going to know if the manufacturer fraudulently installs labels?

¹ http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20151124-farmers-branch-solar-panel-company-to-pay-8.5-million-in-fraud-case.ece


----------



## Pcinspector1

Post #271,

Looks like at one time the shingles were a red color? And like TheCommish stated, they look like abestos shingles or fibercement wall shingles.

Those type shingles had a small hole for the nail that was blind nailed to the wall.

It would be interesting to see what a power washer would reveal!


----------



## conarb

Had our Tiger *inspected this solar installation* I bet they wouldn't have burned.


----------



## conarb

England too:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *A large fire occurred yesterday at Hove Town Hall caused by a faulty  solar panel on the roof of the building. No-one was hurt. Locals have  been quick to take aim at the Green party with jibes over their record  in office at Brighton and Hove city council, which owns the building.*
> 
> O’Leary said that solar panels present numerous additional challenges to  firefighters, with the result that buildings fitted with solar panels  are sometimes left to simply burn out rather than be tackled in the  event of a fire.
> 
> “Firefighters need to consider the additional roof loading of the array, especially when the purlins/rafters etc. are fire-damaged or water-laden. They also need to consider the fact that DC string cables may be running down through the property from a system that, during daylight hours, is producing voltages anywhere between 400VDC to 1000VDC, and currents between 1A and 10A, depending on the nature of the installation and the irradiance present.
> 
> “Furthermore, solar PV modules are manufactured to include a number of potentially hazardous chemicals and materials which may be released as a side-effect of the fire damage. All of these considerations, and more, can lead to the fire service deciding that the level of risk and uncertainty is too high to justify dealing with the property fire at all – resulting in some instances where properties have been literally left to burn out.”
> 
> Meanwhile in Brighton, locals mocked the irony of the Green party’s only town hall being set alight by a solar panel just weeks before the next council elections.
> 
> Argus reader Martha Gunn commented “Didn’t think the Green Party would take scorched earth policy quite that far! Or did they leave the microwave on again?”
> 
> Benny Duncan-Jarrs said “Just typical of the greens. Probably created the most pollution over their tenure than any other party anywhere. Added to the fumes from congested traffic this makes for a perfect swansong for them as they exit Brighton once and for all – Roll on May.”
> 
> An anonymous reader joked “A Green party spokesman said ‘it was the wrong sort of sun’ today.”
> 
> While another mused “Greens burning the accounts before the next council takes over and alerts the fraud squad?”¹


¹ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/21/bonfire-of-insanity-solar-panels-start-fire-at-green-party-run-hove-town-hall/


----------



## ICE

Way too many solar contractors have no clue about what they are doing.









If I can pull it off with my bare hands.......


----------



## Pcinspector1

I'll hand it to ya, your on top of that solar stuff, ICE!

(UL) approved

ICE approved, NOT!


----------



## Five9

Looks like they aren't using micro inverters. They should have used a wire nut instead. That would have been much easier.


----------



## Five9

Or a split bolt...


----------



## ICE

Five9 said:
			
		

> Looks like they aren't using micro inverters. They should have used a wire nut instead. That would have been much easier.


If there are micro-inverters, the wire becomes a GEC and splices shall be irreversible.


----------



## Five9

Enphase has micro inverters with an integrated ground that according to them only requires a egc and no gec.

http://youtu.be/B50lZ5y-HBQ

What do you think Ice?


----------



## ICE

Five9 said:
			
		

> Enphase has micro inverters with an integrated ground that according to them only requires a egc and no gec. http://youtu.be/B50lZ5y-HBQ
> 
> What do you think Ice?


That is correct.  They have taken the next step and obtained UL2703 Listing for the purpose of providing the EGC for the entire rack system.  I have not seen the Listing Report.  I do not know which rack systems have been included other than Unirac.  There are several mounting systems that do not have a rail and the micro-inverter mounts directly to the module.  I am not aware of UL2703 Listing for that application.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — Two firefighters were shocked, apparently by a rooftop solar panel, while trying to extinguish a one-alarm fire at a home in San Francisco’s Bayview District Wednesday afternoon, a fire department spokeswoman said.The firefighters were battling the blaze from an adjacent roof and  said they did not touch the solar panel, but still got shocked somehow.
> 
> “It’s possible that the solar panels, we had water up on the roof,  there could have been electrical coming off the solar panels into the  water which is a great conduit and the firefighter was standing in  water,” Batallion Chief Michael Thompson said.
> 
> Residents of the home had started a fire in the fireplace at the home  and the flames apparently spread somehow from the chimney to the roof  and attic, Talmadge said.¹


Wonder if those panels were installed without a permit?

Interesting that we have had "No Burn Days" every Christmas and New Years' Eve for the last several years, but not this year, they do recommend against burning though.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> In the wintertime, when the weather remains cold and stagnant for several days, wood smoke can build up to unhealthy levels. When this weather pattern is in place and pollution levels are rising, the Air District will ask Bay Area residents to not burn wood.When wood burning is discouraged, the Air District will notify local news media and advisories will be posted on www.sparetheair.org.
> 
> Although burning wood is not illegal on recommended no-burn days, Bay Area residents can help keep wood smoke from becoming a neighborhood health problem by choosing not to use their fireplaces and woodstoves when the Air District announces a recommended no-burn day.²


¹ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/23/sf-firefighters-shocked-by-rooftop-solar-panels-while-fighting-house-fire/

² http://www.sparetheair.org/stay-informed/particulate-matter/wood-smoke/recommended-no-burn-days


----------



## ICE

I asked where the water pipe is bonded and was shown the water heater. There is a jumper from the hot to cold to T&P drain pipe, which is a first for me.





The water heater is insulated, there is a T&P drain pipe, they even screwed the vent connector to the draft hood......but they didn't install the seismic straps.


----------



## ICE

It's not pretty ..... it's putty.


----------



## ICE




----------



## ICE

I can see the AC disconnect from the inverter but I can't see the inverter from the AC disconnect.


----------



## steveray

I got distracted by the weird ductwork on the neighbors roof....


----------



## ICE

The company guy that met me said, "Well they wouldn't pull a vent out and just leave it laying on the roof".  He wouldn't take a $10 bet on that. 









That's not going to be easy to fix.


----------



## steveray

Maybe a red warning sticker that says: "Warning! This was installed by a solar contractor." should be required as well as all of the others...


----------



## Paul Sweet

#290 - I've never seen a valley shingled quite like that.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Is that a copper water pipe or painted conduit?

Paul, 
Your right I haven't seen that valley install either, but if it has felt or a its a second roofing install, it would most likely work don't you think? Manufacture probably not going to stand behind their warranty I suspect. 
pc1


----------



## steveray

Paul Sweet said:


> #290 - I've never seen a valley shingled quite like that.



Poorly woven valley, but not that unusual..You can tell it wasn't a good roofer as none of the tabs line up on the shingles...It doesn't rain in SoCal anyway...


----------



## ICE

This is a UL Listed ground lug.  The listing states that it is to be used with #12 to #6 AWG wire.  The picture shows how well it doesn't work with #6.


----------



## conarb

Paul Sweet said:


> #290 - I've never seen a valley shingled quite like that.


It;s called a "woven valley", it's a cheap way to do it but some manufacturers approve it as an alternate installation, the Tiger Code could request manufacturers' installation instructions to see if this particular manufacturer accepts it, and if it does what kind of underlayment is required.


----------



## fatboy

steveray said:


> Poorly woven valley, but not that unusual..You can tell it wasn't a good roofer as none of the tabs line up on the shingles...It doesn't rain in SoCal anyway...



Yes, a bad attempt at a woven valley.


----------



## Paul Sweet

I've seen a lot of woven valleys, but they have always woven one course at a time, and not 3 or 4.  I know they're cheaper, but they're still FUGLY.


----------



## ICE

10:30 AM
T
	

The trees belong to the neighbor.


----------



## ICE

Five times this week and twice today I encountered open gear with nobody in sight.   The workmen and women open it all and then find a shade tree to park under while they wait for the inspector.  When I tell them that this cost them a day because I will not do the inspection I hear, "Most inspectors get upset if the covers and dead-fronts aren't removed before they get there".  I hand them a few of my business cards and tell them to give them to those inspectors and ask them to call me.


----------



## conarb

Tiger, why don't you do these dumb people a favor and condemn all solar installations? Several neighbors have installed them and are paying way more, I've built a lot of homes in Lafayette and none of them has ever had an electric bill of over $100 a month, I live a few miles from Lafayette and average about $35 a month for the electric portion of my utility bill. 



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> Not long after moving into his house in 1973, he installed a solar water heater. The first set of solar panels went on the roof around 2008. That slashed his annual electric bill to $78 from about $1,300. But the bill shot up again after he bought the new car, a Chevy Volt electric hybrid, so he bought a second set of panels in 2014.¹



Something is drastically wrong with this story since the house pictured looks like a rather ordinary cheap house, nothing like some of the 5,000 square foot plus homes I've built there that have never seen $100 a month bills, I can see his electric bill going from $78 a month to $1,300 a month if he bought an electric car.  

Building inspectors should be protecting people from being scammed like this. 


¹ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/b...olar-panels-no-longer-pay-in-some-states.html


----------



## ICE

"_The first set of solar panels went on the roof around 2008. That slashed his annual electric bill to $78 from about $1,300_."

Well he was saving $1,222 until he bought an electric car and now he has spent another $20,000 to get the bill back down.  He hasn't been saving anything....he already spent the money.

"_With the savings on his monthly electric bills, he figured the investment would pay for itself in about a dozen years.

But then the utilities regulators changed the equation.

As a result, Pacific Gas & Electric recently did away with the rate schedule chosen by Mr. Holtmann, a retired electrical engineer, and many other solar customers in this part of California. The new schedule will make them pay much more for the electricity they draw from the grid in the evening, while paying those customers less for the excess power their solar panels send back to the grid on sunny summer days_."

Anybody that didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention. The system is rigged to bleed the utility companies dry.  The next chapter of the saga is a 10,000,000 sq.ft. factory in Nevada that produces batteries.   I am hearing from homeowners that say that they are going to install Elon's batteries and tell Edison to remove the service drop and quit sending a monthly bill.  Smart money says to buy Generac stock.

_"Building inspectors should be protecting people from being scammed like this."_

As Tommy, the oldest Henderson boy said, "_*Here's the thing about that*._" Dealing with crooked contractors would be a full time occupation.  It is rampant.  My best estimate is that the thieves outnumber the honest contractors.

Yesterday I inspected a re-roof.  The lady that owns the 1500 sq.ft. house paid $12,000 for 20 year shingles.  She told me that her next project is air conditioning and the same contractor will be pulling a permit next week.  I asked her if she got several bids.  She said no ... she signed a contract with a $7,000 deposit.  She didn't say what the total is and I didn't ask....I'm not supposed to ask....or even care.


----------



## conarb

Tiger:



			
				Tiger said:
			
		

> "The first set of solar panels went on the roof around 2008. That slashed his annual electric bill to $78 from about $1,300."
> 
> Well he was saving $1,222 until he bought an electric car and now he has spent another $20,000 to get the bill back down. He hasn't been saving anything....he already spent the money.
> 
> "With the savings on his monthly electric bills, he figured the investment would pay for itself in about a dozen years.



I build and live in this area, there is no way in Hell that the little house pictured ever used $1,300 a month for electricity without charging an electric car.  The most electricity I ever heard of being used was in a house I built in 1984, it was supposed to be a "solar house" that had a very expensive solar thermal system on it designed by a mechanical engineer, fortunately we had a smart CBO there and when I went to permit the house he said there was no guarantee that the system would work, I had to have a backup system to make sure the home could meet the code minimum temperature requirements, back to the engineer and he designed a system of electric coil heating units wrapping the ducting, the system didn't work and relied upon the electric coils costing an average of $600 a month, the owner was constantly calling service people who finally told him that it had reached it's service life at 10 years and it needed to be replaced, the owner just tore the solar thermal racks off the hillside and planted a fruit orchard there, to this day the house uses the electric coils at $600 a month, that is an 8,000 square foot house, not a small tin roofed house like shown and is a few miles away.

You should at least tell the idiots that California law bans contractors from taking deposits over $1,000 and advise her to call the State License Board to get her money back.  Isn't that what we have building inspectors for, to protect idiots and cheapskates? Look what the CBO did back in 1984, he protected the home owner so at least he had heat.


----------



## Mark K

The role of the building inspectors is not to protect homeowners from contractors and consultants.  The role of the building department is to enforce the code.  Licensing boards and tort law are what is supposed to protect the public from bad contractors and consultants.


----------



## ICE

I am not allowed to counsel people on license laws.  I am not allowed to have, or express, an opinion on contractors or their fees.

I have gone out of my way in the past and it never turns out well.  It becomes a pile of angst for the customer and they roll over in the end.

The amount of money that I could save people and improve the quality of the work is substantial but I work for the government.  So I am beholden to the government, not the citizens.  All they have on their side is a cruel hoax called Angie's List.


----------



## conarb

Yeah, but look at how that CBO used the code to protect the owner in 1984, he didn't think so at the time becasue the addition of the electric heating cost over $100,000, the addition required an 1,100 amp service to be installed on the home, which required us to pay the PG&E to dig two blocks of the street up to find large enough conductors to service the home.  Had he not required it the home would have had insufficient heat.

I just went to Google the house to show you a picture of that house, *the green terraces were originally covered in solar thermal panels*, that lot cost $700,000 in 1983 and the house cost $1.2 million for a total of $1.9 million not counting architecture and engineering fees, I see the owner filed bankruptcy in 2013 and the house was sold out of bankruptcy for $1.1 million, so maybe the code requirements did force the people to lose their house, kind of like ADA bankrupting small businesses.


----------



## Paul Sweet

Conarb,  The article said "That slashed his *annual* electric bill to $78 from about $1,300."  That's about $108 per month.

I don't know if it's still in effect, but one of the federal energy acts back in the 80s or 90s required utilities to purchase power from people who installed renewable energy sources at their highest avoided cost - which was double or triple the rate they could sell that power to others for.  The trouble with such subsidies is that they aren't sustainable in the long run.


----------



## conarb

Paul said:
			
		

> Conarb, The article said "That slashed his annual electric bill to $78 from about $1,300." That's about $108 per month.



Thanks Paul, I didn't catch that, all I know is that around here the only homes that are exceeding $1,000 a month in electricity charges are homes with electric cars, even that home I mentioned that I built with the failed solar thermal system only averaged $600 a month.


----------



## ICE

They called for another inspection.  The only difference is that the wire isn't outside the array.


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

There is a section of the B&P code that regulates contractor that encourages building inspectors to notify the State License Board about contractors' offenses, obeying all codes is a requirement.

When you see these same solar contractors repeatedly violating the code why don't you notify the Board, they have online forms to fill out and submit.


----------



## ICE

The administrators where I work have decreed that inspectors are not allowed to contact the CSLB.  I had something to do with that.  It's amazing that a bandit contractor can browbeat this AHJ.  It makes me wonder if .......

Do you have a B&P code section#?


----------



## conarb

ICE said:


> The administrators where I work have decreed that inspectors are not allowed to contact the CSLB.  I had something to do with that.  It's amazing that a bandit contractor can browbeat this AHJ.  It makes me wonder if .......
> 
> Do you have a B&P code section#?



I'll look it up for you, as far as Solar City is concerned did you see that Musk is buying it and putting it under the Tesla umbrella, I checked the License Board and Solar City has no license, on the yard sign there was what was supposedly Solar City's website, I entered it into my browser and it lead to the site of another contractor with no license number as required by law, there also was no permit on the job.  Apparently around here they are allowing them to install these things without permits.  I used to get the book every year from a law service with a searchable CD but I cancelled the subscription when I retired, but I'll find it.  If you could take the license number of a Solar City permit in your jurisdiction, post it here and I'll check it out.


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

The last volume I have is 2012 and I put the CD in my computer and can't find it, I'm sure there was a time when the License Board actually put the words "Building Inspector" in the statutes, they even had an article some years ago in their quarterly newsletter to contractor about encouraging building inspectors to file complaints against bad contractors.  Looking at the* current complaint form* you will see under the section called "REPORTING PARTY INFORMATION (REQUIRED)" four boxes to check, Public, Government, Industry, and Other, I suspect what has happened is they changed the wording and now have one complaint form and an inspector would check the "Government" box.  I've got years of these books with CDs and if we had to I could go back year-by-year until I found the language, but what good would it do now that the language has changed?

I do believe that the Board would take a complaint from an inspector more seriously than they would from one disgruntled customer, because an inspector would be complaining about a repeat offender.


----------



## steveray

Our Department of Consumer Protection is going after one of the companies criminally now and they dislike them as much as we do....


----------



## ICE

Solar City:
Listed as Solarcity Corporation...3055 Clearview Way, San Mateo, CA 94402
(650) 963-5100

License number: 888104
Classifications:
C46 - Solar
B - general building contractor
C10 - electrical
A - general engineering contractor
C20 - warm-air heating. ventilation and air-conditioning
C39- roofing

Citation:  # 2 2011 001754
Date: 05/20/2013
Status: Completed
Code B&P Code
Violation: 7030.5
Description: No license number on contracts and/or advertising


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

Note that the CSLB website *has a page just for building officials* that has a link to reporting activity.  The complaint against them for no license number on contracts and/or advertising is what I'm seeing here and is ongoing.  I guess they too assume they are above the law that applies to the rest of us, they need more complaints listing other health and safety violations, if you guys all started filing complaints against them you would be doing a greater public service than just tagging the things you show.


----------



## ICE

It's not against the law to make mistakes.... stupid is not illegal. There is no such thing as overcharging. Substandard results might be their best effort.  But hey now, all is not lost for the CSLB is tough on signs.


----------



## conarb

ICE said:


> It's not against the law to make mistakes.... stupid is not illegal. There is no such thing as overcharging. Substandard results might be their best effort.  But hey now, all is not lost for the CSLB is tough on signs.


I guess that's about it, as I went into a restaurant yesterday for lunch parked in the lot was a new F-150 with Solar City painted all over it in green, replete with the state license board number, see the License Board is there protecting us from fraud and incompetency.


----------



## Wayne

Lots of solar consumers aren't too happy here in Vegas.  
http://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...t-summerlin-energy-bankruptcy-gain-bit-relief


----------



## ICE

three inches of clearance.

The contractor told me that the clearance issue should have been caught by the inspector when the service was upgraded ten years ago.


----------



## steveray

Did they change the conductors when the service was upgraded? If not, I probably wouldn't call it....fact is they made it worse, which you are not allowed to do, Period....Should've is not a blanket pass for anything going forward.


----------



## tmurray

ICE said:


> The contractor told me that the clearance issue should have been caught by the inspector when the service was upgraded ten years ago.



My boss has a good saying for this: "just because we mad a mistake once doesn't mean we need to keep making it."


----------



## ICE

At an inspection for PV I had to get inside to verify the smoke and co alarms.  There were none.  The lady asked the contractor why he didn't say something sooner.  He said, "Most inspectors do not go in the house"  Then he asked me if a picture would be good enough so that the lady wouldn't have to take another day off work.


----------



## rogerpa

And you said ...".  "


----------



## ICE

rogerpa said:


> And you said ...".  "


The lady was quite elderly and she was embarrassed.  I'm pretty sure that his request had more to do with him not waiting for my signature.  But that had nothing to do with me saying no.  I don't accept pictures for much of anything....especially if I can't trust the person.


----------



## ICE




----------



## ICE

Can anyone tell me what hardware has been used to support the conduit?
















Well then, I'm no solar genius but I would've thought that after a couple of ripped shingles they might get the idea that maybe we should ask somebody about this.


----------



## conarb

Tiger:

A neighbor sold his house to a guy who fixed it up, added solar panels, and moved out renting it out.  The other day I saw him over there fooling around with the main breaker, I asked him what he was doing and he said the main was turning off, he called Solar City and they told him to replace the main breakers, that they were defective.  First of all they left the original 60 amp panel on the house, stuffing bigger breakers into the panel doesn't seem right to me, but I'm a carpenter not an electrician.  What would you do to this guy if Solar City had bothered to get a permit?


----------



## ICE

conarb said:


> Tiger:
> 
> A neighbor sold his house to a guy who fixed it up, added solar panels, and moved out renting it out.  The other day I saw him over there fooling around with the main breaker, I asked him what he was doing and he said the main was turning off, he called Solar City and they told him to replace the main breakers, that they were defective.  First of all they left the original 60 amp panel on the house, stuffing bigger breakers into the panel doesn't seem right to me, but I'm a carpenter not an electrician.  What would you do to this guy if Solar City had bothered to get a permit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2403


Solar City usually has their name on the inverter.  I am surprised that there is no permit considering the POCO involvement.  Old small services can be a challenge because there may not be a way to determine the buss rating and that dictates the size of the solar contribution.  I don't see any labels on the service or conduit, one of which should be a diagram of the building that shows the layout of the solar equipment.

Another thing that I don't see is a GEC for two ground rods.  Then there's the missing DC disconnect.

What is the ampere rating of the mains and the back-fed breakers for the solar?


----------



## conarb

Tiger said:
			
		

> Another thing that I don't see is a GEC for two ground rods. Then there's the missing DC disconnect.



There aren't any, and they are required by PG&E in this area, the guy got very defensive when I came out and questioned him. I told him I was a retired builder and what he was doing wasn't right, to get a licensed electrician, he responded: "If you are really a retired builder you certainly know that if the breakers trip you need bigger breakers." 



			
				Tiger said:
			
		

> What is the ampere rating of the mains and the back-fed breakers for the solar?



The old service appears to have been a 60 amp panel, I guess that means he had a pair of 25 amp breakers, I guess I could go over and lift it open and see what he's put in there.


----------



## ICE

I don't touch anything without first testing it.  Just in case....where do you keep the keys to the Viper?


----------



## Pcinspector1

Ruppert has a question?

ICE do you have any re-roof inspections with a solar array on the roof?  How's that process work?

And when you retire will there be another ICE the II or is there a Jr. ICE to pick up where you left off?


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:


> T "If you are really a retired builder you certainly know that if the breakers trip you need bigger breakers."



It's scary to think that this person thinks they know what they're doing.


----------



## ICE

Pcinspector1 said:


> Ruppert has a question?
> ICE do you have any re-roof inspections with a solar array on the roof?  How's that process work?


I have encountered several re-roof jobs that had solar.  I probably talked about it here but if it is in the average day thread I'll never find it.  Here is the first one.  I didn't know that there was solar until I showed up for the sheathing inspection.  The roofer told me that he was going to put it back together himself.  He said that he has done it before.  He assured me that the panels were safe and dead because they were unplugged. I told him to send a solar, C-10 or B licensed contractor to pull a permit to replace the solar.

The roofer complained to the office manager...I was instructed to let the roofer replace the solar without a permit or inspection.  The reason given was that our dept. lacked a written policy that deals with solar and re-roofing.  That was Jan. 2014.  At the beginning of this year a written policy came out.  Now a solar, C-10 or B licensed contractor has to pull a permit to replace the solar.




The only other instance was when I did a final inspection on a re-roof.  The owner asked me if I would be the one inspecting the solar.  I said that I would when the company gets a permit.  He said that the company told him that no permit is required based on the fact that the solar had passed a final inspection three years ago.  I had no idea that there had been solar on the roof previously because I had gone up a ladder at the front and not seen an inverter.  All of the solar equipment was in the garage.

Some solar contractors do not care about the condition of the roof covering.  I have heard that they will R&R the solar for from free to $500.00.


----------



## ICE

Pcinspector1 said:


> Ruppert has a question?
> 
> And when you retire will there be another ICE the II or is there a Jr. ICE to pick up where you left off?



I am not what the Department of Public Works would call a successful inspector. 
So no, there are no more tigers in the concrete jungle.  Lots of pussy cats.


----------



## ICE

I am not recommending that you do this.  I always pull the ground wires out and try to rotate the crimp.  If it moves there is a code violation.  




This one came off.  That happens more often than you might think.




The witness marks from the crimping tool are evident.




Evidently the crimp is the wrong size for the application.




Here are witness marks from Channel Lock pliers.


----------



## ICE

These are both GEC splices performed by a solar contractor.




There was this one.  The crimps were loose with more than two wires in the crimp.




That has become this:




I have not encountered these before now.  The contractor tells me that they are UL Listed for the wire sizes and they are for sale at Home Depot....he emphasized the Home Depot connection.  I just said no....get legitimate c-crimps.


----------



## steveray

I have seen those before for ground splices in an outlet box, but not for GEC stuff...


----------



## ICE

I see these way too often.


----------



## Paul Sweet

Maybe I've been doing things the hard way, but I always thought you were supposed to twist the wires together, and the crimps were just there to keep the wires from coming untwisted.


----------



## ICE

If you guys aren't finding this, you aren't looking for it. 




And yet again I removed the crimp with a bare hand.




Here he is putting it back together.




It should come as no surprise that the service was wide open and unattended.



I was told that from now on he will make sure that it is secure when I am the inspector.  I can't explain the lack of respect that permeates the solar industry.  There is no financial advantage to this practice and the downside could be enormous.

On a positive note, I had a solar inspection today where the technician that met me did not have anything open.  As he used his screw gun to remove covers I said that I wanted to applaud him for being safe.  What I didn't know was that I had chewed him out in the past for being dangerous.  He told me that his company decided that I was right and they now will not open until the inspector arrives.  He said that an inspector in the city of G,,,,.... failed them because the covers were not removed before he arrived.  They called the city BO.  The city agreed with the company. 

The fact that I complimented the tech for being safe should be an indication of how rare that is.


----------



## mfichter80

ICE said:


> The roof is aluminum and the solar installers beat the Hell out of it.  The roof can't be seen from the ground, so the HO is unaware of the damage.  This is one case where I'm thankful that quality control isn't my bag.


Is there 3 feet of walking space for firefighters?  (maybe around the outside)


----------



## conarb

mfichter80 said:


> Is there 3 feet of walking space for firefighters?  (maybe around the outside)



No, but Tiger wants to approve it to electrocute a few firemen after what they did to us with the fire sprinklers.


----------



## ICE

mfichter80 said:


> Is there 3 feet of walking space for firefighters?  (maybe around the outside)


The three feet is required on both sides or up the middle as is the case here.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE and conarb at the same election party? posting @ 12:09 and 1:07 am

Did you guys go to work today?


----------



## conarb

Pcinspector1 said:


> ICE and conarb at the same election party? posting @ 12:09 and 1:07 am
> 
> Did you guys go to work today?


We had to celebrate, but where is Brent, he should be ecstatic that the evil witch is gone.  

Trump says he's getting out of the climate agreements, the Russian people are jubilant that the warmonger is gone (I watched it on Russian TV last night) , now can we proceed with dumping the International Codes and go back to reasonable does like the UBC? Or maybe a new code writing agency and start all over again now that we are not going to be ruling the world imposing our codes on them?


----------



## Pcinspector1

con, I ear what your saying, you should have been in KC for the code hearings, the energy code dominated several days. I heard testimony that they think we use to much water at the kitchen sink and want to change the aerator size.

I just saw a post on hear where the NFPA and the IBC has a conflict with handrail spacing. I don't remember these type conflicts when we enforced the UBC back in the 80's.


----------



## conarb

Pcinspector1 said:


> con, I ear what your saying, you should have been in KC for the code hearings, the energy code dominated several days. I heard testimony that they think we use to much water at the kitchen sink and want to change the aerator size.


 Pc:

We have that in Communist California, of all the stupid code requirements the low flow toilets and faucets enrage the upper classes the most, the idea that a statist society can tell a man how much water he can use to water his lawn, flush his toilet, or brush his teeth is infuriating, especially when the reason we don't have water is "to save the fish", and the single largest consumer of water is illegal marijuana farming that they don't do anything about. 

Now the question is, with withdrawing from all climate accords how are going to get this bullshit out of the codes?


----------



## Rick18071

Don't think The fed's can dictate what the state or locals can do with codes.


----------



## Pcinspector1

I recently had an architect approved design for a two story elevator. It had a sprinkler head and smoke detector installed in the shaft that I approved @ the muni level. Then the state elevator inspector from the fire marshals office was called out to inspect. He told the GC to remove both the detector and the sprinkler head. I told the GC as long as he signs off on it and provides the overriding code I'd allow it. 

The school just wanted to use the dam elevator being they paid for it, so I obliged.


----------



## steveray

Tell the elevator inspector he may no longer have an IBC/NFPA 13 building....If you omit protection in IBC, you still need detection....Just posted the section in another thread


----------



## tmurray

Pcinspector1 said:


> I recently had an architect approved design for a two story elevator. It had a sprinkler head and smoke detector installed in the shaft that I approved @ the muni level. Then the state elevator inspector from the fire marshals office was called out to inspect. He told the GC to remove both the detector and the sprinkler head. I told the GC as long as he signs off on it and provides the overriding code I'd allow it.
> 
> The school just wanted to use the dam elevator being they paid for it, so I obliged.



Was there justification given as to why it must be removed?


----------



## Pcinspector1

It was noted on the elevator inspection list as not required by A17.1-2004


----------



## rogerpa

Rick18071 said:


> Don't think The fed's can dictate what the state or locals can do with codes.



Since the federal government CANNOT mandate that the states adopt an energy code, they included ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) of 2009 passed by the 111th congress a "carrot" requirement that *if *the states adopt a plan to achieve energy conservation levels of the (2009) IECC or equivalent for residential and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for commercial buildings additional funding for "energy" related projects is made available. These funds cannot be used to fill "budget holes".The "requirement" only applies to 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007.
The other thing that the Fed's are doing is sending DOE lobbyists to the ICC Code Development hearings with code change proposals. One of the changes adopted (in 2015 IECC & IRC Chapter 11) is to require all return air to be ducted. Building wall and floor cavities can no longer be used. This conflicts with the IMC and Chapter 16. Of course, the DOE said this would not increase the cost of construction.


----------



## tmurray

rogerpa said:


> One of the changes adopted (in 2015 IECC & IRC Chapter 11) is to require all return air to be ducted. Building wall and floor cavities can no longer be used. This conflicts with the IMC and Chapter 16. Of course, the DOE said this would not increase the cost of construction.



You can't do that here either. It has more to do with indoor air quality than energy.


----------

