MCS Wind Working Group (WG03a) Minutes for 16 th October 2014

Transcription

1 Meeting of: MCS Wind Working Group (WG03a) Date: 16 th October 2014 Venue: Gemserv, 8 Fenchurch Place, London, EC3M 4AJ Attendees: Name Representing Name Representing David Sharman (DS) Ampair (Chair) Heather Kerr (HK) MCS Administrator Louisa Coursey (LC) Renewable UK Graham Eastwick (GE) Encraft Kasia Jozwiak (KJ) BRE Gavin Kerr (GK) Kingspan Owen Paterson (OP) Gaia-Wind Apologies: Name Representing Name Representing John Moore (JM) GreenRed Group Chris Roberts (CR) Poweri John Holden (JH) BRE Martin Cotterell Sundog (MC) Kevin Sweeney (KS) Intertek Teresa Auciello (TA) Marlec Alistair Mackinnon DNV-GL Mike Wastling (MW) Evance (AMK) Andy McKenzie (AM) Hayes McKenzie Sylvia Broneske (SB) Hayes McKenzie 16/10/2014 Page 1 of 11

2 Agenda: 1. Approval of the agenda 2. Minutes and actions of the last meeting 3. Update on MCS wide activity 4. MCS statistical review 5. RUK smallwind product standard 6. Status of MCS 006 product standard (change use of IEC ) 7. Status of CE72 rewrite by RUK 8. Status of MIS 3003 smallwind installer standard 9. Status of medium wind standards (for info) 10. What s working / what s not working 11. Expenses etc re WG, SMG, SG, etc 12. AOB and date of next meeting a. MCS definitions b. Product data sheets c. Gaming risks 1. Approval of the agenda The agenda of the meeting was approved by the Group. The MCS Administrator explained to the group that John Moore has decided to resign from the MCS WG03a (small wind). The group wish to extend their thanks to John for the work he put into the working group activities over the years. 16/10/2014 Page 2 of 11

3 2. Minutes and actions of the last meeting MCS Wind Working Group (WG03a) The minutes and actions of the previous meeting were agreed as accurate by the Group. The group ran through each action from the previous meeting on 18 th October Previous action 1: Roll over. DS explained the background to previous action 1. It is known that the NOABL database has limitations and there are alternative models available including the Met Office wind speed tool. The Energy Saving Trust and The Carbon Trust historically owned the licence for this tool. The licence was transferred to (possibly) the Met Office and could (probably) not be taken on by RenewableUK because it was likely that the data would not be freely available. It is not possible to enforce use of a tool through the MCS standards that is not freely available. The previous action was for RUK to investigate the transfer of the licence however Carbon Trust suggested that this may be technically difficult without the right experts. An alternative option is for a direct agreement to be set up with the Met Office to secure the release of the underlying dataset. RUK explained that the Met Office are currently revising their data policies and have requested the assistance of RUK to put together a business case for the release of the dataset. The group agreed RUK should continue to work with the Met Office on the business case and that DS should write a proposal to MCS to try to secure funding. ACTION 1: RUK to work with the Met Office on a business case that would result in the release of the wind speed dataset. ACTION 2: DS to write a proposal to MCS to try to secure funding for an alternative to NOABL. DS explained that the MCS Standards Management Group (SMG) have agreed a budget for projects that would assist the MCS technical working groups. It was noted that the medium wind working group will experience the same problems with the limitations of the NOABL data. The proposal for funding from MCS will assist the small and medium wind working groups. 16/10/2014 Page 3 of 11

4 The group wanted to note that they support the principle of extra funding from MCS as long as the MCS installer/product fees do not increase as a result. Previous action 2: Completed. Previous action 3: Roll over. The group discussed the addition of the 2.2 Vave requirement and the potential problems this would cause for testing. It was agreed that the standard could not be rewritten because it was already an FDIS. AMK agreed to speak to the test labs sub group of the CAC to enquire whether a clarification note can be issued. This would need to be ratified by the IEC committee and then placed on the IEC website. Once available, MCS 006 would be updated to include a reference to the clarification note. ACTION 3: AMK to speak to the test labs sub group of the CAC about a potential clarification note and to copy in DS. Previous action 4, 5, 6 and 7: Completed. Previous action 8: Roll over. The action was for Evance to provide a copy of the noise bridging standard to RUK for approval. The draft was provided however there was uncertainty around whether or not this was a draft or a final version. The group agreed that the document needs to go through the formal MCS change process in order to incorporate it into the Scheme documents. RUK took on an action to send the draft noise bridging standard to the group and to initiate the MCS change process. ACTION 4: RUK to circulate the draft noise bridging standard to the group. ACTION 5: RUK to initiate the MCS change process to incorporate the noise bridging standard into the MCS standards. Previous action 9, 10 and 11: Completed. 16/10/2014 Page 4 of 11

5 3. Update on MCS wide activity MCS Wind Working Group (WG03a) HK (MCS Administrator) gave an update on MCS wide activity. The group noted that there is a strong desire that the MCS electricity led standards are not directly referenced in the Feed in Tariff legislation. The group agreed that this would place unnecessary restrictions on the ability to update the MCS standards. The group also noted that they do not agree with the proposal to create a compliance certificate for the wind standard. The group agreed that there is no benefit to the customer or the installer and that it adds an additional burden on the installer to produce this for every installation. 4. MCS Statistical Review HK (MCS Administrator) gave an update on the latest MCS statistics. The following statistics were presented: Number of installations Number of installers joining and leaving the Scheme Number of products joining and leaving the Scheme. Number of Certification Bodies Number of complaints It was noted that the installers that have removed wind from their scope have possibly done so in order to install biomass and solar installations. The group agreed that the quality of wind installers on the Scheme is acceptable. The group expressed concern that it is not financially possible for manufacturers to certify under 5kW turbines due to the cost of certification. It was agreed that the number of products currently certified on the Scheme is healthy. 16/10/2014 Page 5 of 11

6 The group noted that the product data may be misleading because several of the products have separate MCS certificates for the single phase, split phase and three phase models. The MCS Administrator agreed to redo the product statistics and remove the variations listed above so as to get a better picture of the true number of certified turbine products. ACTION 6: MCS Administrator to redo the product statistics removing the separate MCS certificates relating to single, split and three phase models. 5. RUK smallwind product standard The final version of the RUK product standard was released in January There have been no changes since then and there are none in the pipeline. 6. Status of MCS 006 product standard (change use of IEC ) MCS 006 was published at the same time as the RUK smallwind product standard in January There have been a small number of queries relating to the standard that were dealt with by DS. KJ highlighted that is not yet published on the BSI website. KJ agreed to DS who will then investigate when it is due to be published. (post meeting note BSI have now published the BS EN) The group discussed a potential area for concern in the MCS 006 standard. In order to provide a small wind turbine manufacturer/applicant with a choice for conformity assessment, MCS 006 permits the use of the IEC as the basis for design evaluation. An applicant may choose this route accepting the more rigorous design evaluation and loads measurement in lieu of the time taken to perform the Duration test 16/10/2014 Page 6 of 11

7 The structure of IEC differs from IEC IEC covers design requirements but does not cover testing verification requirements which are incorporated within Part B:Testing of the IEC standard, As a consequence, it may be necessary to include additional MCS test verification requirements for turbines. Certain IEC :2010 clauses could be incorporated. DS agreed to write out to the MCS and RUK smallwind working group members and Certification Bodies in order to initiate an informal consultation to determine whether members agree that certain IEC clauses should be added into MCS 006. ACTION 7: DS to write to smallwind members and Certification Bodies to gather views on the proposal to add certain clauses from IEC into MCS 006. If there is agreement, the MCS 006 standard will be subject to the formal MCS processes in order to amend the standard. This will include a public consultation. 7. Status of CE72 rewrite by RUK DS explained that there had been no progress on the rewrite of CE72 since the last meeting. It was noted that currently there is no resource available to focus on it. GK explained that the document may not be far from completion but that it needs to be revisited to confirm this. ACTION 8: GK to write to DS, Kevin Parslow, Mike Wastling and MCS enquiring about the current status of CE72. ACTION 9: DS to write to MCS with a proposal for funding of the CE72 rewrite. 16/10/2014 Page 7 of 11

8 8. Status of MIS 3003 smallwind installer standard It was noted that amendments to MIS 3003 link directly to the CE72 rewrite. MIS 3003 will not be amended until the rewrite of CE72 is completed. 9. Status of medium wind standards (for info) RUK gave an update from the last medium wind meeting that took place on 25 th September The MCS product standard and the RUK guideline are very close to completion however the installer standard requires more work. The last meeting saw contributions from several medium wind installers which moved the development of the installer standards on significantly. A major issue that was highlighted is around grid connections and capacity restraints for installers. This potentially means that sections of the product standard will have to be amended. RUK issued a questionnaire to medium wind working group members asking how industry felt about the draft standards, who is likely to go through medium wind certification and how much they would expect to pay for this. The results will be discussed at the next medium wind meeting on 6 th November It was estimated that there would be a draft available for the product and installer standard in quarter two, The group asked whether an installer would be automatically certified to install small wind turbines if they were to go through medium wind certification. The group agreed that it would depend on the wording within the scope section and that they would wait on the draft before commenting further. 10. What s working / what s not working RUK issued a questionnaire to the RUK strategy group. The feedback received was very limited and included a mixture of positive and negative comments. The key issues highlighted were around marketing the Scheme and the effectiveness of the complaints procedure. The group 16/10/2014 Page 8 of 11

9 noted that marketing of the Scheme is currently very limited however it should remain this way until the MCS legal entity; an official CEO; and a robust complaints procedure are in place. LC explained that the MCS Steering Group have signed off a marketing budget of 10,000 for electricity led installations. The group were asked to provide suggestions for how this could be spent. ACTION 10: LC to send summary of marketing budget from MCS Steering Group to MCS Administrator for circulation to the group. Group members to then suggest ways to spend budget. There was a strong view that the current complaint procedure is not sufficient. It was noted that there is currently no reporting on complaints to the Steering Group and it is not possible to breakdown complaints by technology type. It was also agreed that is unclear what should be covered by manufacturer and installer insurance policies. The group agreed that it was important to raise with the Steering Group what happens to the customer if the installer/manufacturer go out of business. The MCS Administrator took an action to do further work on the complaint statistics across MCS. ACTION 11: MCS Administrator to provide detailed complaint statistics to the group. The group spoke about the IEC RE Scheme and whether or not this will be a benefit to MCS. It was noted that it may lead to international recognition of the MCS standards. 11. Expenses etc re WG, SMG, SG, etc DS explained that the Chairs of the technical working groups are now able to submit an expenses claim for reasonable costs incurred when attending working group or SMG meetings. 16/10/2014 Page 9 of 11

10 12. AOB and date of next meeting a) MCS definitions MCS Wind Working Group (WG03a) The MCS Administrator explained that a member of the SMG has undertaken a large piece of work to unify the terms and definitions referenced in the MCS Scheme standards and documents. The group were asked to review the proposed amendments to the definitions and submit any comments to MCS by 21 st October ACTION 12: Group to review MCS definitions and submit any comments to MCS by 21st October b) Product data sheets The MCS Administrator explained that the SMG are currently creating a template product data sheet. Once available, each technical working group will be asked to populate it with technology specific fields. The group noted that they already have a wind product data sheet that is ready to be incorporated into the MCS template. c) Gaming risks The SMG asked all technology working groups to review their standards in order to highlight any areas that could lead to gaming risks within the Scheme. The group agreed that currently the risks are very low however the industry are currently engaging with DECC with the aim to include an extra tariff band within the Feed in Tariff. If this 15kW band was to be included it could potentially encourage manufacturers to de-rate the turbine for it to fall into a more financially beneficial Feed in tariff band. The group agreed that until this additional tariff band is introduced the gaming risks within the smallwind standard are low. 16/10/2014 Page 10 of 11

11 The group agreed that it would be beneficial to hold a conference call in six months time to ensure the progression of the CE72 rewrite continues. The conference call is taking place on Thursday 16 th April from The next face to face meeting will take place on Monday 12 th October from The MCS Administrator agreed to send out calendar invitations for these meetings. 16/10/2014 Page 11 of 11