New Registration Endorsements

[Slovett]

Hi,

Not sure if this is the right place to post this question or not? But I have question about the new Registration Endorsements -

Why did they choose Mains Parallel Generation and not Specifically the Generation Source ie PV or Wind etc? I would have thought the install of the PV array or Wind Turbines or mini Hydro systems etc. would carry a higher risk and would require more specialised knowledge than connecting an Inverter to the Mains Supply?

Also if you miss out on the Grand-parenting of an Endorsement, what other avenues are there to gain these Endorsements?

Thanks

[AlecK]

1
Why did they choose Mains Parallel Generation?

Because it's classified as high-risk PEW in ESR 6A.
whereas PV is not.

2
if you miss out on the Grand-parenting of an Endorsement, what other avenues are there to gain these Endorsements

so far, nothing.
And not likely to be anytime soon, because EWRB have no ides of how to judge competence.

And because it will not be possible to gain experience in future,
because the the LoW prohibit working outside current competence, even under supervision of someone with relevant endorsement.

Basically it's a cluster-fuck

[Slovett]

Yeah it seems like an ill thought out idea. I understand the intention (mostly) but it seems the outcome is a headache for anyone all ready registered / licensed that may have the opportunity to work - either Install or Inspection in these areas in the future, but don't meet the Grand Parenting allowance.

Surely they will have to allow people to attend courses to gain what ever Unit Standards are required to gain these endorsements? Like an exam dedicated to the relevant Standards that the Endorsement involves. - It would be nice to know.

Also I should of said PV system in an Installation -

[AlecK]

The thing about a "PV installation" is that in most cases it not just a PV installation.

PV by itself is not classified as high-risk PEW.
You can do whatever on the array; and it's either not PEW (for ELV) or general PEW (for LV arrays).

The part that's high-risk is the mains-parallel inverter.

Note these come under two different Standards

Saying "PV system" is OK for general discussion, as that's how most people see a typical roof-top system
(with or without a BESS, which is another Standard).

But when talking about how the Rules apply; we must be careful with using correct terminology

----------------
same applies to batteries as for PV, they have to comply with Standards;
but unless it LV it's not PEW needing certified.

Inverters supplying an LV installation are also general PEW
UNLESS - as is usual for "rooftop solar" - they operate in parallel with grid.
That's where Worksafe has determined there's high risk if it's done wrong.
And EWRB is basing their new licence endorsements largely on that risk classification

-------------

I agree with the principle that people doing, or inspecting, high-risk PEW should be competent on those particular areas of the industry.

I don't think the system EWRB have come up with has a snowball's chance of achieving that intent.

three listings in the database over two years may demonstrate recent experience - just barely.
It certainly doesn't show competence.

[Slovett]

OK, the way I interpret ESR 6A (2)(a)(iv) - is that PV in an installation (LV) is High Risk PEW, regardless if the Inverter its connected to is MPG or not. If the Inverter is MPG then there would be 2 High Risk aspects to the Install

[AlecK]

Yes, you are correct; both PV (at LV) and MPG are high risk.
I should have known. And should have checked.

Why they have picked the MPG and not the PV for this set of changes is unknown.
Even stranger is that they have decided to distinguish between PEW in a cardiac-protected area and other medical PEW.