Travis,
I know that the original argument had to do with installers wanting to install on their own facility. I don't know why that would be a conflict at all. That should always be encouraged. The issue was related to opening the door to "self-installation" by homeowners, not contractors. This is where the problem lies. Since no contractor is on record for the warranty, there should be a lower rebate for that type of installation. If the contractor is providing the warranty for their own system, I agree that there is no incentive to let the system fail. Throwing out a lower rebate for "self-installers" just encourages fraudulent contracting. Address the issue by allowing all contractor installations at the full rebate amount, and all homeowner installs at the reduced amount. It seems very simple to me. Bill. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Travis Creswell Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:19 AM To: 'RE-wrenches' Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant Bill, It's obvious you feel pretty strongly about this and you have always made a lot of sense over the years. But I'm not seeing your side completely. The business owner still has some costs and risks associated with warranting their own system. If they are troubleshooting/removing/replacing components they either aren't getting paid themselves or they are paying their own employees to do the work. What about the module manufacturer that tanks within the warranty period leaving installer holding the bag on bad modules? It doesn't matter if they are on his (or her) roof or not. I would agree that it's easier this less expensive to support the warranty on your own gear but it's certainly not free. Perhaps the reduced credit is fair but it's not accurate to say the installer has no costs associated with warranty of their own system. Best, Travis Creswell Ozark Energy Services _____ From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:57 PM To: 'RE-wrenches' Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant Roger, Why would a legitimate contractor argue against this reduced incentive (it is not a penalty at all)? This is simply acknowledging the fact that operating a business and providing a long-term system warranty costs money that a self-installer does not have to carry. This actually came from a strong recommendation I made to the California Energy Commission since early in the rebate program over 30% of installations were "self-installed" which was a bunch of BS. These were black market contractors who did not want to carry a system warranty or did not have the credentials to install the system. Once we installed the slightly lower rebate cleaned up most of the black market contracting and the number of self-installed systems went to the real number of less than 5%. Arguing against the lower rebate was a mistake that you are going to regret. It's helpful to learn from history before repeating it. Bill. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of roger dixon Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:33 PM To: 'RE-wrenches' Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant Try the DSIRE website, http://www.dsireusa.org/. It lists both state and federal incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Up until this year, NJ would penalize a "self install", reducing the rebate amount by 15%. We argued against that and they have now removed that penalty. Roger Dixon Certified Wind Site Assessor Distributor & Installer of Solar & Wind Energy Systems Skylands Renewable Energy, LLC 908.337.2057 cell 908.730.6474 fax roger.di...@skylandsre.com www.skylandsre.com SkylandsRenewD66bR03dP01ZL Note: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). It is the property of the sender of this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail in error, do not review, disseminate, or copy it. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Drake Chamberlin Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:50 AM To: RE-wrenches Subject: [RE-wrenches] Installer's grant Hello Wrenches, I wanted to see how other states are handling solar grants / rebates on the homes of installers. In Ohio there is a grant program that gives $3.00 / Watt toward residential systems. Eligible installers must be approved by the state, and funds are allotted to the installer. In this years program, there is a "conflict of interest" clause which says that installers, employees of installers and subcontractors of installers are not eligible for any grant funding from the grant received by the installer. It is likely that installers can hire their competition to do installations. Do other states have this conflict of interest clause? Thanks, Drake Chamberlin Athens Electric OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP TM Certified PV Installer Office - 740-448-7328 Mobile - 740-856-9648
<<image001.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Options & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
