William, Your frustration with the process is understandable, and quite justified to a great extent. However, to say "... those directly involved in the rule making process...", and alluding to your previous description including "industry advocates", is patently unfair. I'm one of those "industry advocates. I, along with Bill Brooks and many others on these committees, do our level best to bring some modicum of sanity to an otherwise very insane process. Over the years, I've been to many meetings with "industry advocates" such as Bill and many others. I've watched as he and our colleagues do their utmost to educate those who would vote these issues upon us in an attempt to help them "see the light". A few we win. Many we lose. Problem is, there are more of "them" than there are of "us". Code decisions are frequently made by people who have no direct experience in the solar energy industry, and it shows. In spite of this, Bill, I, and others who ARE from the solar industry continue our efforts from within. As Andrew from Portland proved in his post earlier this week .. even one person in the right place at the right time can make a difference. Your frustration is evident when we hear from you (and others) when you say .. "They're supposed to have the public's interest foremost in mind...". "They" in this context no doubt references the code committees and the constituent members, including those from our industry. It's just that some of us are on your side, and are continuing the struggle to the best of our ability. Richard Perez said it best in an editorial of perhaps 15 years ago, when code problems back then were as much an issue as they are today. As best I can paraphrase .. ".. if this madness continues .. *they* will have us all sitting at home in perfect safety .. in the dark." [Emphasis is mine.] Richard went on to exclude those of us within the solar industry from the ubiquitous "they" on these committees. The effort continues, but it's an uphill battle at best. The work isn't often visible to you or others, but rest assured, our "industry advocates" are doing their best under otherwise very difficult circumstances. Regards to all....
Dan -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 2/14/14, William Korthof <wkort...@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: [RE-wrenches] California State Fire Marshal's "Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> Date: Friday, February 14, 2014, 9:42 PM I wholeheartedly concur with the critics here. [rant mode on] I've long been very critical of certain elements of the Electric code...But the state fire Marshall guidelines are approaching outrageous. I feel very let down by the industry advocates, trade groups, and especially those directly involved in the rule making process... They're supposed to have the public's interest foremost in mind---code standards are supposed to be based on the rigorous test that they demonstrably prevent loss of life and loss of property at an economically justified cost. Instead, it seems, the rule-making has advanced to secure a role for continuing stream of proprietary and incrementally more costly "safety" hardware along with a secure role for those in the process to secure themselves a reliable permanent stream of consulting gigs training and retraining ever more complex and unintelligible code rules. /wk William Korthof 714.875.3576 Sustainable Solutions #956904 _______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change email address & 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
