{"id":33214,"date":"2022-10-07T17:31:57","date_gmt":"2022-10-07T21:31:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=33214"},"modified":"2022-10-07T17:31:57","modified_gmt":"2022-10-07T21:31:57","slug":"government-overreach-us-solar-seia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=33214","title":{"rendered":"This is how government overreach could bring the US solar industry to its knees"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Solar Energy Industries Association, the nonprofit trade association of the US solar industry, just flagged<\/a> a proposed change to the 2024 International Building Code by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that would do more harm than good to the US solar industry.<\/p>\n

Bureacratic overreach on solar<\/h2>\n

Abigail\u00a0Ross\u00a0Hopper,\u00a0president and CEO of the SEIA, published a blog yesterday that draws attention to the potential damage this misguided code change would inflict on solar, battery storage, and wind. She writes:<\/p>\n

\n

This misguided proposal by FEMA would raise the structural \u201crisk category\u201d for ground-mounted solar installations, energy storage systems, and wind turbines to the highest level possible, on par with requirements for hospitals and fire\u00a0stations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ross Hopper argues that the current codes ain\u2019t broke, so don\u2019t fix them:<\/p>\n

\n

This is a gross overreach. There is no extended record of irreparable damage to solar arrays from higher seismic, wind or snow loads, and there is no justification for these overly burdensome\u00a0codes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There are already strict requirements in place that make solar panels sufficiently resilient against high winds and snow loads. Ross Hopper cites the resilience of Florida\u2019s Babcock Ranch development, a \u201csolar-powered town\u201d 12 miles outside of Fort Myers that kept its power, internet, and water supply despite the devastating Hurricane Ian passing over it. CNN writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe have proof of the case now because [the hurricane] came right over us,\u201d Nancy Chorpenning, a 68-year-old Babcock Ranch resident, told CNN. \u201cWe have water, electricity, internet \u2014 and we may be the only people in Southwest Florida who are that fortunate.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The proposed code changes would result in unnecessary increased costs for solar projects, as developers would need to procure more materials such as steel, concrete, and higher rated solar PV modules to comply with stricter new requirements. The SEIA fears that this would make solar growth cost prohibitive:<\/p>\n

\n

This much is certain: The proposed code change is unworkable. In its current form, S76-22<\/a> would cause a drastic spike in construction costs, forcing the cancellation of dozens of gigawatts of clean energy projects that support thousands of jobs and that the United States is relying on to boost grid\u00a0resiliency.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As for wind power, the SEIA points out in its fact sheet that S76-22\u2019s \u201cunneeded load increases constrain the size & height of wind turbines, reducing power output.\u201d<\/p>\n

Proponents of S76-22 believe that applying higher seismic, wind, and snow loads to structural calculations would lead to greater grid reliability.<\/p>\n

But grid reliability is under the scope of influence of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the SEIA says those two agencies weren\u2019t even consulted about FEMA\u2019s code change proposals.<\/p>\n

So, the SEIA has opted for political diplomacy: It\u2019s calling for compromise solutions that would allow solar projects to be designated as Risk Category 2:<\/p>\n

\n

While it still increases the structural requirements for solar facilities, this framework takes a reasonable approach and will help ensure more projects get\u00a0built.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Electrek\u2019s Take<\/h2>\n

I met up with a solar industry executive on September 8 for coffee here in Vermont. They were headed to FERC\u2019s \u201cNew England Winter Gas-Electric Forum\u201d\u00a0in Burlington and said that no clean energy industry representatives were included on the panel. <\/p>\n

I found that extremely surprising, seeing how the Biden administration is pushing hard for the move to electrification, and FERC is a federal government agency. The executive explained that government agencies can sometimes lag behind in getting on the bandwagon on newly implemented initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act. <\/p>\n

That situation seems to be the case here with the stricter FEMA building code proposal. It falls into the \u201cwell intended, poorly executed\u201d category, and SEIA is right: It needs to either be amended or scrapped. The United States can\u2019t afford to lose momentum under any circumstances in its move to clean energy.<\/p>\n

Read more:<\/strong> This modular off-grid solar EV charger can be installed in just four hours<\/a><\/p>\n

Photo: US Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh at First Solar<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

UnderstandSolar is a free service that links you to top-rated solar installers in your region for personalized solar estimates. Tesla now offers price matching, so it\u2019s important to shop for the best quotes.\u00a0Click here to learn more and get your quotes<\/a>. \u2014 *ad<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.<\/em> More.<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n\n

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos<\/a> and subscribe to the podcast<\/a>.<\/p>\n