Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Installer changed solar panel without telling us

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Installer changed solar panel without telling us

    Hi there,

    I am hoping someone can help me determine whether or not this is a big deal... We had our solar panels installed last week, the model that was supposed to be installed was the Hanwa Q-Cell Q.PEAK BLK-G4.1 285... However, the solar company did not have these panels in stock and instead found it appropriate to install Jinko Eagle PERC 60 (JKM280M-60) in it's place. Note that the panels they installed are 280W as opposed to the 285W panels on our contract. Yesterday, the company reached out and told us that they did not install the panels that were in the contract as they weren't in stock and offered to compensate us $280, which is the difference in the price. They told us this after already having installed the panels with the rationale being that it was a negligible difference between the two panels and it was more important to get the panels installed during the summer months. They estimated that we would produce 70 less kilowatts per year where we are projected to produce about 4300 total, there are 14 panels.

    I feel like they should have asked us about this first, and I am wondering if this is something I should be concerned about. The panels are different brands and I know there are differences between the panels themselves when it comes to performance, however I am not familiar with the technical aspects of solar panels and do not know what is significant and what is not.

    My question is, should I accept the difference as negligible, or is this a problem I need to be acting on?

    Thank you for your help.

  • #2
    It isn't awesome that they did that, but the quality and performance of those panels should be similar. It is 1.7% less production than you thought you were getting, but if you can live with that, there probably is some merit to the idea of getting the system started instead of waiting however long it would be until they had the right panels.

    How much are you paying for the system?
    CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm paying about 16k

      Comment


      • #4
        What does your contract say ?

        If the material specified in the contract is different than what you got, and the written terms of the contract allow material substitutions, and you signed off on the contract before they told you about the substitution, you may have little recourse but to take their offer.

        But, whether you know it or not, you have the whip hand that's holding their reputation, or at least some of it, which is about one of their most valuable assets, or at least ought to be if they're reputable and professional (?).

        If material substitutions are not allowed by the terms of the contract, I'd be all over them like stink on a doggie steamer, and about as unpleasant about it.

        Either way, as far as compensation, I'd go after them, either by direct negotiation or through small claims court, not only for the upfront price difference, but also the net present value (NPV) of the 70 kWh/yr. of estimated lost production over the possible life of the panels, which NPV, as an example only, using a 30 yr. possible panel life, and assumptions of a 0.5%/yr. annual panel production deterioration, a discount rate of about 6 %, and energy inflation matching general inflation of about 3%/yr., and at, say, a $0.20/kWh current electricity price per kWh, makes the NPV of 70 kWh/yr. of electricity flush out at ~ $280 or so. Do the math using values appropriate to your situation.

        If I even considered accepting compensation for their error as an alternate to making their error right, (which error, BTW, I'd be be very skeptical about calling an error and believing their lame excuse), and using my example, I'd need to have them at least double their $280 offer before I'd consider it: = $280 for material + $280 as NPV of future lost production, or whatever NPV number your calcs. come up with based on your power prices and your situation. In any case, how that was done sounds like, IMO only, but I'm not surprised, a very unprofessional way of doing business (and which would make me question what else they did in a less than professional manner in the way of material and construction).

        Good luck.

        Comment


        • #5
          Would need to know what the balance of the system is to give much of an opinion on performance. If tied to micro inverters or an undersized inverter it may mean no actual difference at all in performance. If you are OK with the warrantee of the substituted panels I would accept the offer. But I do agree they should have informed you first.

          WWW

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wy_White_Wolf View Post
            Would need to know what the balance of the system is to give much of an opinion on performance. If tied to micro inverters or an undersized inverter it may mean no actual difference at all in performance. If you are OK with the warrantee of the substituted panels I would accept the offer. But I do agree they should have informed you first.

            WWW
            All depending on what the written, signed contract may say:

            So the OP accepts their claim of initial price difference as adequate compensation and swallows the present value of the lost production that the vendor admits to ?

            And that's with no consideration of the lost confidence on the part of the OP that the unprofessional actions by the vendor can very likely produce in the future ?

            Or the general possibly bad feelings and confidence erosion the whole deceptive experience may well generate in the future if things/problems develop ?

            To all that, I say. $280 ain't enough.

            IMO, going after the vendor for no more than initial price difference, and (charitably, it seems to me - given what their track record on what their word and veracity looks like so far) accepting their word on such price difference, and also going after the vendor for some reasonably accounted for and perhaps negotiated additional financial compensation based on their estimate/admission of what the annual lost production might be, and basically letting them off the hook for anything else, is more than reasonable, maybe even generous.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
              What does your contract say ?

              If the material specified in the contract is different than what you got, and the written terms of the contract allow material substitutions, and you signed off on the contract before they told you about the substitution, you may have little recourse but to take their offer.

              But, whether you know it or not, you have the whip hand that's holding their reputation, or at least some of it, which is about one of their most valuable assets, or at least ought to be if they're reputable and professional (?).

              If material substitutions are not allowed by the terms of the contract, I'd be all over them like stink on a doggie steamer, and about as unpleasant about it.

              Either way, as far as compensation, I'd go after them, either by direct negotiation or through small claims court, not only for the upfront price difference, but also the net present value (NPV) of the 70 kWh/yr. of estimated lost production over the possible life of the panels, which NPV, as an example only, using a 30 yr. possible panel life, and assumptions of a 0.5%/yr. annual panel production deterioration, a discount rate of about 6 %, and energy inflation matching general inflation of about 3%/yr., and at, say, a $0.20/kWh current electricity price per kWh, makes the NPV of 70 kWh/yr. of electricity flush out at ~ $280 or so. Do the math using values appropriate to your situation.

              If I even considered accepting compensation for their error as an alternate to making their error right, (which error, BTW, I'd be be very skeptical about calling an error and believing their lame excuse), and using my example, I'd need to have them at least double their $280 offer before I'd consider it: = $280 for material + $280 as NPV of future lost production, or whatever NPV number your calcs. come up with based on your power prices and your situation. In any case, how that was done sounds like, IMO only, but I'm not surprised, a very unprofessional way of doing business (and which would make me question what else they did in a less than professional manner in the way of material and construction).

              Good luck.
              Not arguing against this as another way of calculating due compensation, but when you add the two aren't you double-counting? The $280 material cost is the marginal investment that wasn't actually done, the NPV is the marginal return on the marginal investment (ideally should be greater than the marginal investment for there to be a reason, so let's say that it's actually comes out to $300 instead of $280) that won't be received. Shouldn't the request be the higher of either the marginal cost or the marginal return - so higher of $280 or $300, not the sum of both?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wwu123 View Post

                Not arguing against this as another way of calculating due compensation, but when you add the two aren't you double-counting? The $280 material cost is the marginal investment that wasn't actually done, the NPV is the marginal return on the marginal investment (ideally should be greater than the marginal investment for there to be a reason, so let's say that it's actually comes out to $300 instead of $280) that won't be received. Shouldn't the request be the higher of either the marginal cost or the marginal return - so higher of $280 or $300, not the sum of both?
                If you look at just absolute numbers yes, but from a business perspective sum is what will make the customer happy for the vendor making changes without taking customer in confidence. I call it the cost of keeping customer happy or cost of making bone headed decisions while in business. We are not talking about thousands of dollars - If I am the vendor pay 500.00 and call it day. I can assure you that his margin is way more than the 500.00

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wwu123 View Post

                  Not arguing against this as another way of calculating due compensation, but when you add the two aren't you double-counting? The $280 material cost is the marginal investment that wasn't actually done, the NPV is the marginal return on the marginal investment (ideally should be greater than the marginal investment for there to be a reason, so let's say that it's actually comes out to $300 instead of $280) that won't be received. Shouldn't the request be the higher of either the marginal cost or the marginal return - so higher of $280 or $300, not the sum of both?
                  I believe I understand your logic and what you're writing, but I'd say no.

                  Depending on how the contract was written, a certain amount of money was agreed to for specific equipment and services along with the expectation of a certain level of performance from that equipment. That performance expectation, if not stated specifically in the contract, had its likely deficiency - which shortfall, I'd suggest, is the more important part for compensation purposes - acknowledged by the vendor.

                  The first contract requirement was not met - the equipment was different than contracted for. It sounds like that's what the $280 offer from the vendor is meant to cover.

                  The second requirement - an expectation of performance - was acknowledged as having at least some reduced probability of happening (as those things go, given the vagaries of yr./yr. performance variations as the weather may cause). That shortfall of some performance, at least acknowledged by the admission of a likely performance shortfall by the vendor, is also a contract completion deficiency, that shortcoming confirmed by acknowledgement as not met by the vendor, and therefore, being in effect, an acknowledged contract commitment not met, also in need of correction, either through negotiation, arbitration, or adjudicated through the court system.

                  Basically, The OP didn't get the equipment that was agreed to and signed for. As a result, the OP's bills will be higher. Both shortfalls need to be addressed. It's a compound deficiency.

                  Respectfully,

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ah, I get it, one is more of a breach of contract re equipment specifications, which is not really about cost but could be attributed to quality, density, longevity or other reasons to specify one piece of equipment over another, e.g.
                    Hanwa vs Jinko
                    280 vs 285 (production per sq ft, roof coverage as opposed to the increased generation itself).

                    Whatever the reasons the owner expected a certain brand or piece of equipment, to change that one-sided should have some compensation. Contractor suggested to compensate at $4/watt, but that's arbitrary as in reality $4/watt is not a measure of cost of the material to either the contractor or the owner anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wwu123 View Post
                      Ah, I get it, one is more of a breach of contract re equipment specifications, which is not really about cost but could be attributed to quality, density, longevity or other reasons to specify one piece of equipment over another, e.g.
                      Hanwa vs Jinko
                      280 vs 285 (production per sq ft, roof coverage as opposed to the increased generation itself).

                      Whatever the reasons the owner expected a certain brand or piece of equipment, to change that one-sided should have some compensation. Contractor suggested to compensate at $4/watt, but that's arbitrary as in reality $4/watt is not a measure of cost of the material to either the contractor or the owner anyway.
                      The way I read the OP's post was that the $4.00/Watt was for the material difference in array size as a $$/STC Watt deficiency to make for what was contracted for vs. what was installed.

                      Note that the company's position on the fix they proposed was stated as an offer on their part. This is now a negotiation, and the OP has the whip hand in some ways, most importantly (if the vendor is a reputable outfit ??), and whether the OP knows it or not, the vendor's reputation. I'd go for a lot more than what I wrote, and I'd do it in small claims court provided the signed contract didn't mandate binding arbitration, but opinions vary. That was merely a serving suggestion.

                      What the vendor did by not disclosing a contract change priori was absolutely avoidable and absolutely unethical. To be kind, It looks to me like they may have got their tit in the ringer on availability and tried to B.S. their way out of it and got discovered somehow or by someone other than the OP. To be a little more cynical about it, maybe a more profitable/larger/better known customer or use for the product slated for the OP came along and the OP's panels went that way. Who knows ? Who knows why it was disclosed ?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X