Rheem says strongly opposes “inequitable” changes to solar hot water rules

Rheem Australia – the owner of the country’s biggest installer of solar hot water equipment, Solarhart – says it “strongly opposes” the change in standards that will require all future installations to be facing north, rather than east or west as is often the practice.

hot-waterThe release of the standard has taken much of the industry by surprise, even though it was apparently a long time in the making. What is even more surprising to the industry is that the standard has already been adopted as part of the building code.

Rheem’s head of corporate affairs Gareth Jennings rejected suggestions in the industry that his company had somehow been behind the changes to the standard. In fact, he said, Rheem had been the only company to oppose the standard, which he said made no sense.

“From the time that this recommendation was made, we have opposed it,” Jennings said in an interview with RenewEconomy.

“We don’t think it is workable, and we don’t think it is equitable,” he said of the changes, which as RenewEconomy reported on Friday, require all new solar hot water systems to be orientated within 45° of true north.

The industry has suggested that this could devastate the market, as it will eliminate possibly one-third of all potential customers, and could make plumbers decide that the solar hot water industry is just “too hard.”

Jennings says there were a couple of “outs” in the new legislation, including the ability to follow manufacturing guidelines rather than the standard. But he said he understood that this option had been ruled out in New South Wales and Queensland.

Another option was to “prove” that non-conforming systems – i.e. those that faced east or west, were as efficient as north facing. But this would take time and money (for a fee).

“We are very concerned about the unintended consequences of this change,” Jennings said. “We think it is unlikely that all installers would be aware of the change, and it is quite possible that installations will take place that don’t comply.”

Jennings said his company was also stunned by the speed with which changed standards, released in December, had been adopted into the building code (in February). He said the “undue haste” was virtually unheard of in the building industry.

The changes have left the industry scratching their heads. No one can understand, and it seems that no one can explain, exactly why the north facing standard has been introduced. And no one can understand why it has all happened so quickly.

Comments

23 responses to “Rheem says strongly opposes “inequitable” changes to solar hot water rules”

  1. Brunel Avatar
    Brunel

    Government bans are quite dangerous.

    Next, they might ban east facing solar panels.

    1. solarguy Avatar
      solarguy

      They could! There seems to be no shortage of idiots!

  2. solarguy Avatar
    solarguy

    In light of this new information, it may have nothing to do with government and more to do with those who flogg heat pumps perhaps, as they could be on the standards committee.
    The main issue is whether the CER will refuse to pay STC’s on collectors, that are installed greater than 45 degrees azimuth from North.

    What ever the reason this nonsense will not be tolerated!

    1. Brunel Avatar
      Brunel

      Of course in the old days SHW used to mean a drum on the roof that can be seen from the footpath.

      Do the new ones have a hidden drum?

      1. Chris Fraser Avatar
        Chris Fraser

        Yes, the tank can be located at ground level with a small Grundfos pump to push cold water up to the collectors and return hot water to the tank.

    2. Brian Tehan Avatar
      Brian Tehan

      I think that a heat pump, especially if paired with solar pv is, probably, a better alternative for those living in cooler climates, like Melbourne. In areas like Melbourne, the hot water solar collectors really need to be optimally placed, in terms of orientation and angle to be useful. Angle needs to be optimised for winter sun. Even then, it’s probably not that useful in the middle of winter. I have a west facing collector. Works good for 6 months, doesn’t do much for the other 6 months. The money I save on gas for the instantaneous booster is lost on supply charges. A heat pump would be better.

      1. solarguy Avatar
        solarguy

        Why is it facing west? and why are you using gas to boost? What type is it, flat plate or ET?
        PV output in winter is less, than optimised solar thermal, especially on cloudy days, so you need to understand that.

  3. JohnRD Avatar
    JohnRD

    The standard is a good way of reducing investment in solar hot water. We wouldn’t want solar hot water to take business away from the power companies would we?

  4. wmh Avatar
    wmh

    How the inexpert think that they know everything about solar power! Perhaps this is more ignorance than conspiracy…..or perhaps not.

  5. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    Thanks to Rheem and presumably others who have corrected the record on this.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It’s indeed bizarre that governments end up meddling with individual decisions which cannot in any conceivable way interfere with the public good. Perhaps that’s the way things are in undemocratic countries.

  7. ben Avatar
    ben

    I’m sure you will find key existing stakeholders who want to ensure their own market share – power companies, probably using contacts in the LNP to push this through.

    People should put in FOI requests for all submissions to the standards development process, and also all ministerial and political requests made to the standards body during the development of the standard.

  8. George Michaelson Avatar
    George Michaelson

    I was briefly involved in ICT standards development in the 1980s (I was a junior staffer in the CSIRO, and able to read documents in draft form. The voting rights vested elsewhere).

    At the time, the membership of a standards australia working group was a matter of public knowledge. Has something changed or can we be told who are the specific individuals who had input to this process and participated in the decision?

    1. Giles Avatar

      No, I asked, but was told it was subject to privacy provisions. They only provide a list of about two dozen organisations invited to send representatives. Not very transparent.

      1. George Michaelson Avatar
        George Michaelson

        This feels wrong. Participation in standards development which goes to industry compliance and state or federal government backed requirements on trade is not something which should be subject to privacy, people’s participation in the development of the standards should be a matter of public record.

      2. solarguy Avatar
        solarguy

        I have been trying to get that info from standards Australia to no avail, can you supply the list of organisations in regard to this please.

        1. Giles Avatar

          Association of Accredited Certification Bodies

          Association of Hydraulic Services

          Consultants Australia

          Australian Building Codes Board

          Australian Industry Group

          Australian Stainless Steel Development Association

          Building Officials Institute of New Zealand

          Department of Building and Housing (New Zealand)

          Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association of Australia

          Institute of Plumbing Australia

          International Copper Association of Australia

          Master Plumbers Australia

          Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers New Zealand

          National Fire Industry Association

          Plastics Industry Pipe Association of Australia

          Plastics New Zealand

          Plumbing Products Industry Group

          Standards New Zealand

          Water New Zealand

          1. Giles Avatar

            And this explanation on why standard was looked at:
            “Standards Australia received a proposal from the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) to revise 3500.4, which called for suitable technical installation requirements for practitioners. According to the proposal, the previous requirements lacked sufficient detail on orientation, referred largely to manufacturer’s instructions and recommendations, and generally did not comply with government protocol for referenced documents.”

          2. solarguy Avatar
            solarguy

            Thanks, CSI Giles. The last part about ” did not comply with government protocol for ref docs” is interesting! And the bit, “ref to manufactures instructions and recommendations lacking detail on orientation”

            I’ve been selling Edson SHW systems for 8 years and the instructions are very clear as to orientation and tilt angle, some other brands install manuals have been similar too.
            As you said, the gas industry is there but not solar, which of course doesn’t compute. One has to ask the question as to why the ABCB, put in a proposal. Did they have evidence of moronic tradesmen putting collectors to the south, one has to wonder what their motivation has been.

            One thing is that government influence hasn’t been ruled out in my mind, at this point.
            I note that Rheem has said they opposed this, so I wonder what banner they flew under at the committee meetings. This could be a case of bullshit baffling brains here, but I think at this stage the ABCB needs more questioning.

            The CER can’t answer the question of whether they will disallow STC’s from being created for a so called wrongful install.

            Anyway this stupidity must be rectified very soon.
            Thanks for your help with this matter Giles and please keep us all updated.

            Cheers,
            Shaun

          3. Giles Avatar

            Gas appliance association there – but no solar industry. Go figure.

  9. Peter Grant Avatar
    Peter Grant

    The slavish adherence to the standard as ‘best practice’ is as tiresome as it is costly to our society. It is a disease fostered by lazy policy makers at the behest of vested interests. I think the impact of the ‘shall’ instead of ‘should’ in this case more reflects a symptom rather than a cause.

    It is long overdue that the allocation of STC’s be decoupled from strict compliance with the Standard.

    A standard that restrictively mandates thermal efficiency with regard to orientation for RE installations is inconsistent with achieving high levels of saturation. There is an inherent conflict between ‘mandating’ a theoretical thermal efficiency and achieving optimum economic efficiency in an environment of drastically falling technology costs and escalating environmental impacts.

    Different strokes for different folks. Just like PV, hot water may be more useful in the evening (oriented W) or the morning (oriented E) depending on the demand – so why not permit orientation either way? An additional marginal investment in another collector may even improve bulk production beyond an N facing system.

  10. lin Avatar
    lin

    Sounds like someone using “Standards” as a way of protecting market share, with a FF industry-loving government providing their unquestioning support. There needs to be a mechanism for holding those responsible for this sort of corruption and racketeering to account. If nothing criminal has been done, it’s only because laws have been changed or interpreted to protect the guilty.

  11. Les Johnston Avatar
    Les Johnston

    COALition funded by the fossil fuel industry meddling in red tape. Sounds like Greg Hunt on the war path.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.