navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Major changes to G83 rules for solar PV installations needing advance permission  (Read 47365 times)
GavinA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2245

Solar installer


WWW
« on: August 27, 2012, 11:26:30 PM »

A new draft version of the G83/2 regulations has been released for consultation including major changes to the rules about when advance permission is needed for connecting a solar PV system to the grid. These changes have massive implications for the industry as a whole, but particularly for local installation companies with a large local customer base.

The key changes are:-

Definition of 'Close Geographic Region'

Any installations of more than 1 solar PV system by the same installer that fall within either of these categories would require advance permission to be connected, using a revised Appendix 2 multiple installations application form.
Quote
1) The postcodes of any of the premises where a SSEG installation is planned by the same organisation are the same when the last two letters are ignored…ie AB1 2xx where xx could be any pair of letters or where x could be any letter.

2) The premises where a SSEG installation is planned by the same organisation are within 500m of each other.

These rules wouldn't only apply to new installations, but also to all solar PV system that have ever been installed in that 'close geographic region' by the same installer.

Quote
This procedure (single premises connection procedure) will not apply where an Installer plans or has already installed other SSEGs in a Close Geographic Region; in this case the procedure in 5.1.2 shall be followed.

Failure to comply with this requirement may lead to the disconnection of the Customers Installation under ESQCR (26) or failure of the SSEG to operate as intended.
So any installer who carried out an installation within the same postcode area AB1 2XX postcode area or within 500m as another installation they'd carried out, and didn't ask for permission in advance would risk the DNO cutting installation off at any time in the future if any problems did arise with the local grid in that area.

This is a massive change for the industry, that will particularly hit the sort of quality local installers that use this forum who will have most of their work in postcode districts that they've already installed systems in, and will therefore need advance permission to connect them, whereas new start ups, or none local companies could install the same system without needing any advance permission.

Full details here please take a few minutes to read this and think about the potential consequences to your business, then email Ofgem to let them know what you think of these proposals before 28th September 2012 gareth.evans@ofgem.gov.uk
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 11:45:56 PM by GavinA » Logged

at home | 80 tubes, 2 tanks direct PV powered SWH + Navitron supplied PV 5 x Yingli 185Wp solar panels
Sean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2012, 11:31:50 PM »

about time to, adding capacity ad hoc is far from ideal for the DNO

time for a far smarter grid
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2012, 11:39:59 PM »

Sadly all it is doing is playing into the DNOs' grubby hands, allowing them to leave many of us with hopelessly inadequate connections, and "playing the system" to avoid doing much-needed updates, as well as penalising small local companies.........
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
GavinA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2245

Solar installer


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2012, 12:13:13 AM »

about time to, adding capacity ad hoc is far from ideal for the DNO

time for a far smarter grid
how will this create a smarter grid?

all this will do is disadvantage companies who've got a large base of installations spread across their local area who will have to go for advance permission, while new companies or those from outside the area can carry out the same installation without needing advance permission at all.

Also, the geographic areas used are far too big, covering up to thousands of houses and dozens of square miles, as well as multiple transformers.

The DNO's application process for both this and G59 applications will also inevitably grind to a halt under the deluge of applications this will generate as well, as they're already mostly at breaking point.
Logged

at home | 80 tubes, 2 tanks direct PV powered SWH + Navitron supplied PV 5 x Yingli 185Wp solar panels
Sean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2012, 12:51:19 AM »


how will this create a smarter grid?


ah but that's not what I said is it

adding generation capacity to an, in many places, very elderly, grid without some thought for the grids ability to handle it is what this change is designed to give back to the DNO




 
Logged
Sean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2012, 12:56:23 AM »

Sadly all it is doing is playing into the DNOs' grubby hands, allowing them to leave many of us with hopelessly inadequate connections, and "playing the system" to avoid doing much-needed updates, as well as penalising small local companies.........

the opposite, also valid point, is that this could be a method to enable the DNOs far greater control over the expansion of small scale generation, which is often installed without due care or attention to the grids ability to cope - thus protecting the supply

up here we are seeing increasingly numerous failures and multiple restarts in local transformers as a direct result of PV/wind installs
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2012, 07:18:24 AM »


how will this create a smarter grid?


ah but that's not what I said is it

adding generation capacity to an, in many places, very elderly, grid without some thought for the grids ability to handle it is what this change is designed to give back to the DNO

I don't agree, this gives the DNO's a get out of jail free card. Rather than respond to micro-generation and upgrade and improve our grid, they can simply restrict expansion.

The best analogy I can think of here is with road transport since the 1950's - rather than get the DOT (and local authorities) to improve and expand the road network , simply put them in charge of vehicle registrations, then refuse any increase in numbers. Problem sorted - sort of!

For over a year now I've read comment after comment on various boards about how we can't do this, or that, because the grid isn't up to it. Everybody knows that our grid needs modernisation and re-working in order to allow all possible solutions to be implemented, but instead we seem to be seeing ways to avoid it. Just more sticking plasters!

Mart.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
Justme
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3505


« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2012, 07:39:11 AM »


ah but that's not what I said is it

adding generation capacity to an, in many places, very elderly, grid without some thought for the grids ability to handle it is what this change is designed to give back to the DNO

 


But it wont will it?

Customer wants a PV install, contacts well recommended local company that then say they cant do the install for 3 months till they get it signed off by the local DNO. So customer then contacts either a large national company or a small up start that can do the install within 4 weeks.

The install still happens, it just does not get done by the local company with a good track record.
Logged

Navitron solar thermal system
30 x 58mm panel 259L TS
1200watts solar 120vdc
FX80 Solar controller
Victron 12v 3000w 120a
6kva genny
6 x 2v cells 1550amp/h 5C
24 x 2v cells 700amp/h 5C
Total bank 4350 amp/h 5C
Sean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2012, 09:29:07 AM »



The install still happens, it just does not get done by the local company with a good track record.

remember this is just a draft, hopefully someone will have a light bulb moment and ensure that potential loophole is covered

Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2012, 09:35:39 AM »

"this could be a method to enable the DNOs far greater control over the expansion of small scale generation" - is precisely the point - in my view, their job is not to obstruct the uptake of small-scale generation for which this would (As M said) be a complete "get out card" - they SHOULD be upgrading the network where necessary, instead, they are looking for every excuse under the sun not to do so - the excuse I got when dealing with my local DNO was that they "only" get £40pa per customer.
In my view the whole area of DNOs needs scrutiny - perhaps they are underfunded, but it is a complete travesty that they are the main bottleneck in the system, and has been pointed out, this is a completely idiotic means of allowing them the power to say "no" to pv installs (and also begs the question of who's going to compensate the punters for the loss of many thousands of quid over the period of a FIT scheme)

I think there are many facets to this, not least, safety - just up the lane from here there's one of their poles leaning at a frightening angle over the road, due to a broken stay - it has been reported umpteen times, and when I upbraided the DNO reps when they called, all I got was a gallic shrug - I gather they'll wait until it fails completely (and possibly highly dangerously!) before doing a damn thing
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Ian-LS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2012, 09:41:49 AM »

not just that loophole but the whole proposal needs scrapping, the way it should work is based on a postcode or street basis as are the rules now, or if they do insisit on implementing the the first 5 digits/letters of a postcode then the DNOs seriously need to reduce their lead time, this means OFGEM need to lower the 45 working day time limit to something much more workable such as 28 days or evene 14 working days. A DNo for Derby turned around a G59 application in 3 working days earlier this summer, if only all DNOs were this efficient I'd have no problem with these proposals in principal, although its only going to increase the average response time from DNOs.
Logged
camillitech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5207



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2012, 10:04:14 AM »

Five digits  hysteria  hysteria  hysteria that's going to be a laugh up here. Mine's **** *PF and my parents is *** *HP yet we're 40 miles apart as the crow flies  Roll Eyes
Logged

http://lifeattheendoftheroad.wordpress.com/

'Off grid' since 1985,  Proven 2.5kW, Proven 6kW direct heating, SI6.OH, 800ah Rolls, 4.75kW PV ,4xTS45, Lister HR2 12kW, , Powerspout pelton, Stream Engine turgo, 60 x Navitron toobs and a 1500lt store. Outback VFX3048 and 950ah forklifts for backup,
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2700


« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2012, 10:24:51 AM »

I thought they already had some powers to prevent a "whole street" of PV ?

Seems reasonable to have some control - for 99% of the population there will not be a problem. The other 1% could theoretically cause huge problems and vast expense to DNO and therefore customers.  Probably sensible to say to the 1% its not possible.

I am confident that OFGEM would have something to say if DNOs misused their power.


Ken
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2012, 10:38:30 AM »

"Probably sensible to say to the 1% its not possible" - why? - that 1% are likely to be those most likely to want to use small-scale generation ("out in the sticks"), why should they be prevented from doing so by obstructive, penny-pinching DNOs? - and who compensates those who are told "no"? whistlie
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
GavinA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2245

Solar installer


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2012, 07:01:54 PM »

I thought they already had some powers to prevent a "whole street" of PV ?

Seems reasonable to have some control - for 99% of the population there will not be a problem. The other 1% could theoretically cause huge problems and vast expense to DNO and therefore customers.  Probably sensible to say to the 1% its not possible.
they do already have the powers if someone wants to install several installations at once in the same street, same postcode, or basically anywhere that's likely to be on the same transformer.

To be honest, this did need a bit of clarification, as it wasn't really clear over what time period this applied, so for instance we're doing an install at the moment close to an install we did 6 months ago, but took the view that there shouldn't be a problem, as both sites have high daytime consumption anyway, and the grid voltage was relatively low, and it's in the middle of a housing estate, and there were no other installations close by.

The thing is though that this won't do a single thing to improve the situation, most that are affected by it will just find another installer who doesn't need to get advance permission and do it that way.

There must be far better methods of dealing with this, I think I may have to put my thinking cap on and see if I can come up with a positive suggestion on this.

I am confident that OFGEM would have something to say if DNOs misused their power.


Ken
2 years ago I might have agreed. Now, I can just about manage a shrug and a yeah well maybe, I'll believe it when I see it. The way they've dealt with a couple of issues I'm aware of this year has hugely knocked my confidence in their competence and desire to do anything to assist with 'reducing the regulatory burden to the uptake of microgeneration' as they're supposed to be doing.

We'll see how they respond to this anyway.
Logged

at home | 80 tubes, 2 tanks direct PV powered SWH + Navitron supplied PV 5 x Yingli 185Wp solar panels
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!