Installer installed wrong panels and I realized after inspection. Need advice

[bottomsup]

Sorry if this I a bit detailed but I thought hard about this before contacting the installer and have done a detailed analysis.

I was given two options by the installer I selected after discarding 3 other companies. The two options were both for a Solar Edge system and 14 panels (Max my roof can fit southern facing)

I had two panels to choose from. Option A was $300 more than Option B. Same warranty on both

• A) LG NeON R LG375Q1C-V5 panels
• B) Q CELLS Q.PEAK DUO BLK ML-G9+ 380

I am very analytical and did a bunch of reading on efficiency, energy coefficients, degegradation, etc.. and decided on option A. This was in late October and in hindsight I mostly optioned for LG because $300 more felt good for a brand I recognize and higher efficiency panels with lower life time degradation.

Fast forward and my system is installed and just received PTO last week. I log into the SolarEdge app and notice in my panel array I have 14 Q CELLS Q.PEAK DUO BLK ML-G10+ 400 (note 400 not 380). After my initial WTF and huge annoyance since I had a few other back and forth with the installer I collected my thoughts and did the following analysis. See xls picture below

I'm in SoCal so I assumed 5 hours of good sun and did several calculations including factoring in degradation for the temperature coefficient based on the average temperature for my city. I have 4 months with average high over 25C so I averaged the delta for those 4 months and applied it to 1/3 of the annual production. I then added the max degradation at 25 years to arrive at the values on the right in green.

Net net is the QCell system is almost exactly the same production after 25 years as the LG despite the LG having better specs. If I would have actually gotten the 380w Cell modules in the original option B I'd be pissed but what options do I have here? I see the following options

1 - Make them give me the LG panels. They need to re-do, re-inspect, and I worry that'd I have 2 panel orders looming over my head because in CA you get this notice from the panel supplier that if the installer does not pay you are liable since they are installed on your property. It just feels too complicated given the outcomes I calculated below

2 - I live with it but tell them I need some compensation since they installed the wrong thing. I estimated the Qcell panels are ~$50 cheaper but that's $700 and in my original quote the LG were only $300 more so I don't feel it's fair to ask for $700 back

3 - I just live with it as is and move on with life

I'm leaning toward option 2 but don't know what's a fair "ask" for the mistake.

Untitled.jpg

[J.P.M.]

What you settle for is your business, but a few things to perhaps think about in your deliberations:

From a production standpoint, your "net net" is probably a pretty good approximation of reality for what production you'll get both short and long term. It probably won't matter which panel is in place, the initial annual production per installed STC W will probably be about the same as well as the long term annual output as the degradation difference will be so small you wouldn't notice a difference in output from those 2 different panels even if you could do a side/side comparison.

BTW, what does your contract say? Sometimes a contract will allow reasonable substitutes in the fine print. But if it's a lock on LG with no contract escape, then it looks like you have the vendor by the short & curlies unless they decide to go belly up before you settle with them.

I'd also check the contract I signed to make sure what you actually got - and then go up on the roof and make sure you didn't get LG's.

Then, I'd do a PVWatts run and get numbers based on better data than some dart throw of average sunlight, whatever that means.
Note that with model inputs close to reality, most folks find that PVWatts modeled output for unshaded arrays gets pretty close to actual long term average output (my 365 day running average of 30day output is ~ +/- ~5 % over the last 8 1/2 yrs.). The model suggest +/- 10 % annual output variation on 30 day summed output based on weather variation.

Between normal weather variation and array fouling from dirt that doesn't get cleaned off the array, that difference you note over time from thermal degradation will be insignificant, even if you could measure it with any reliability.

Bottom line, I'd be a lot more wary of the SolarEdge stuff you bought than the panels. If the traffic on this forum is any indication, panel problems are small in comparison with SolarEdge problems.

Welcome to the neighborhood and the forum of few(er) illusions.

[solarix]

Have you verified what was actually installed? Could be the Solar Edge registration is in error. I'd go with the 400w panels inho...

[J.P.M.]

Have you verified what was actually installed? Could be the Solar Edge registration is in error. I'd go with the 400w panels inho...

Kind of what I was wondering when I suggested the OP go up on the roof and verify.

[Ampster]

Whatever you decide make sure you get a lien release from the supplier who presumably sent you the preliminary notice before paying your vendor. You could pay the vendor direct and get the lien release direct from them or ask them for a conditional release and make a joint check out to the supplier and your vendor for that amount, with the balance going to your vendor.

[PVAndy]

I'd go with the QCell 400's Production in earlier ears will exceed LG's and I don't thin they will degrade as much as you think

We've installed thousands of both panel types and are not seeing a difference in production

Andy

[RichardCullip]

Are you really upset that your installer gave you more powerful panels (400w vs 375w). That bumps your system up to 5.60kW from 5.25kW. I'd be happy with that change.

[mjs020294]

If your contract says LG panels you hold all the cards regardless of the 25 years production forecast. Personally I would crucify the company in your position.

[oregon_phil]

Four years ago, I bought LG NeON R LG365Q1C-A5 panels which are very similar to the OP because I had limited room and they were mono n type panels. Half cut cells were not as well known back then. Now, half cut PERC cells with low LID are available everywhere. Given the choice now, I would go with the Qcells half cut PERC panels.

As others have done on this forum, I have also bought equipment spares just in case something fails and/or gets obsoleted by the supplier.

[Ampster]

.... Personally I would crucify the company in your position.

Crucify?
As others with experience have pointed out, the OP got a bigger system. Technically it might be a breach depending on wording of contract but damages would be hard to prove.

[mjs020294]

Crucify?
As others with experience have pointed out, the OP got a bigger system. Technically it might be a breach depending on wording of contract but damages would be hard to prove.

If they put the wrong product on the roof they would be responsible for removing it. Removing it and replacing it with the correct product would be a costly exercise. Cancelling the contract and removing it would also incur costs to repair the roof.

[J.P.M.]

Crucify?
As others with experience have pointed out, the OP got a bigger system. Technically it might be a breach depending on wording of contract but damages would be hard to prove.

But bigger doesn't assure better, or worse for that matter. Nor do differences in equipment such as PV panels that have more/less become a commodity. So, from an almost common sense standpoint, how much of a breach of contract may or may not have occurred by virtue of a panel change becomes mostly moot. Even if the panels configure into systems and be side/side compared, the cost of such a comparision would be unacceptable making the (potential) lost production a non starter.

If so, seems to me at this point in the OP's situation, the judgements of the worth or appropriateness of such equipments' are better left to arbitrators and adjudicators if ones could be found to do such things.

Even if the case wouldn't be dismissed as frivolous, I doubt the long term gains (or possible reductions in output by switching out panels for that matter) the OP would garner don't come up to as much as what it would cost to file in small claims court.

I still think the OP will get more problems down the road from the Enphase equipment than the panels - whatever panel is presently there - making all this concern about a few STC W of panel a waste of time. But it is the kind of stuff that happens when folks think they know some stuff when they are actually in over their heads knowledge wise.

[Ampster]

If they put the wrong product on the roof they would be responsible for removing it. .. ....

As mentioned earlier, if the contract has a clause that allows like for like substitutions the owner might not have much leverage. Even if the contract doesn’t have such a clause, the burden would be on him to prove damages. I agree with the two other posters who believe the OP received a better system. It would be hard to prove that more capacity caused damages in the context of breach of contract. The burden of proof would be with him.

[scrambler]

If your contract says LG panels you hold all the cards regardless of the 25 years production forecast. Personally I would crucify the company in your position.

And be stuck with a pissed off uncooperative installer for your 25 years of supports....

They made a mistake and if the contract does not support it, they do owe the OP something, and the first thing would be to see what they propose.

On the OP side he should carefully weight all the pros and cons before pushing for any replacement. I agree with others here that ultimately the Qcell may be just as good if not actually better. And one thing to consider is that forcing the installer to remove all existing panels and replace them at its own cost, will mean a new installation performed under stress by a pissed off installer who just wants to have it done as fast as possible.
This to me means a big chance to create many more problems down the line. Having had to deal with a litany of manufacturer and installation problems during the first full two years of my installation, I can tell you peace of mind has a price

[mjs020294]

As mentioned earlier, if the contract has a clause that allows like for like substitutions the owner might not have much leverage. Even if the contract doesn’t have such a clause, the burden would be on him to prove damages. I agree with the two other posters who believe the OP received a better system. It would be hard to prove that more capacity caused damages in the context of breach of contract. The burden of proof would be with him.

Material substitution clauses are usually for minor components. For instance if you bought an SUV that had Goodyear tires in the showroom but your vehicle had a different brand of tires that would be acceptable. If you bought an SUV and they delivered a different model that would not be covered by a substitute materials clause.

Its about leverage, and in this instance the purchaser holds all the cards. In this instance I would using the leverage to get a very good deal to keep the solar as installed.