HomeMy WebLinkAbout09022020 PACAB Laydown,Citizen Comments - Phil KaluzaT
RECEIVED
Frorn: Phil Kaluza <pkaluza@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:56 PM AUG 3 12020
To: Jessica Stallard
Subject: PACAB Citizen Comment on Interconnect Policy OPK'E- OF THE
I CITY CLE'RK
ExteirinWII vn�:di„ This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Jessica, Please forward this email to the PACAB as a citizen comn-ient, for the upcoming meeting. No need to
be read out loud.
To PACAB Chair, and members:
I commend the PACAB for it's continued support for supporting renewable energy and updating our
interconnection policy,
An update on my pv system:
Nov. 2019 - My PV system was inspected and approved by the Seward building department.
May 15th, 2020 John Foutz and staff finally inspected my pv system and verbally approved the system to be
interconnected with the understanding the meter needs to be replaced with one programmed for "net"
metering. John noted, until such time any excess power being generated will not be credited. This was better
than having the system sit idle on the roof with benefit to no one or the envirom-nent.
May 26th, 2020 1 received an email from John Foutz stating lie would have the meter swapped out the
following week. It never happened, no explanation given. This was the last correspondence received from John
prior to his departure.
June 19th, 2020 1 sent a letter to the city manager requesting an update on my meter change -out. No response
or action taken.
A summer has gone by and I have donated a corisiderable amount of my kWh generated to the
community. Not the worst thing, but there is no incentive for anyone to invest thousands of dollars in pv solar
if the utility refuses to comply in a timely manner with the net metering ordinance in place.
J'KE=Wlml� = I E=91M
I have just briefly looked at the checklist and question why we are going down this path? Do the other railbelt
utilities/building dept have such a form? The Seward interconnect ordinance calls for an Application be
submitted, not a checklist. I have no problem with departments having internal checklists to work from, but
they should be internal documents, not mandatory requirements that need to be formally updated as building
codes and industry standards change. Our existing checklist is a perfect example of planned obsolescence and
a deterrent.
I recommend we follow the lead of other utilities, Homer Electric for example, on establishing a simple
application form. Why create new documents when existing ones that have proven to work readily
exist? Referencing building codes that address the equipment and installation requirements are fine. If the
code is updated in the future, the application form remains current. Many if not all of the items on the checklist
are referenced by code. Why not simply refer to that code, or state all current building codes apply? Again, I
have no problem with developing a "best practices" guide, but that is readily available online.
A good example is the specific materials to be used as fasteners and mounting rails. I believe the building
codes thoroughly address structural, corrosion and durability issues. What if a new mounting system is made
of a strong durable composite material and becomes the new construction standard that is engineered, tested,
and accepted by national code. It would be disallowed in Seward.
I also object to disallowing perfectly good used pv hardware that meets all current codes. Where is that in the
code? Why go there? How complicated do we need to make a pv installation? Whatever happened to
acceptable "industry standards" that comply with code?
I believe the Application Forn should be simple. The building department assures code compliance with the
installation. They decide how much detail is necessary for review. The electric utility assures interconnect
equipment meets current safety and power codes and standards. Applicant applies for a conventional building
permit and a review of proposed pv system and specific site interconnect concerns (transformer size, etc.) by the
utility as is done everywhere else in the world.
Presently, approximately 1/3 the cost of a PV system is the marketing and building permits. Streamlining the
permitting and approval process will reduce cost and promote renewable energy. We don't need to reinvent the
wheel, I suggest we follow the leaders in the industry and try to stay caught up.
Phil Kaluza.
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
2