Competing Programs Raise Questions About Solar Training
A new UL University certification and training program for solar installers is entering the market this summer, and it will compete directly against NABCEP.
Arizona, United States The growth in the solar market is creating a lot of opportunity in the area of credentialing. It's also creating a lot of confusion for consumers and job-seekers looking for a way into the technical side of the industry.
As the federal government and U.S. states continue to push green-collar job initiatives, the need for a clear path from the classroom to the roof is as important as ever. But with more training and certification programs emerging all the time, that path is getting difficult to navigate. Certainly competition is a good thing — and the credentialing space is no different. However, if new organizations continue to push different standards and give people mixed messages, up-and-coming renewable energy practitioners may not get the proper experience required to perform reliable, safe installations, says Jane Weissman, executive director of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC). “It's a very chaotic and confusing market out there,” says Weissman. “I want to make sure that we have safe competent workers on the roof and that the public isn't confused about who's doing what under what kind of competencies.” Ultimately, the end consumer is who matters most. If the consumer has a bad experience with solar because of poor work done by an under-qualified installer, the whole industry suffers.
Weissman sees a lot of people leaving three-day training programs thinking they are ready to install solar or small wind systems. The reality is that it takes much more time and experience than a short training session. “We want to make sure someone is not taking a two-day course thinking that they are now qualified,” says Weissman. So how does one get the experience necessary? And how will the growing number of credentialing options impact the quality of that experience? In order for consumers and aspiring installers to understand how to value the various programs and standards out there, it's helpful to first define some terms. Training: Certificate: Certification: Licensing: Accreditation: Understanding the difference between these various credentials is extremely important for consumers and aspiring installers. If a person can look at a training program, understand its benefits and limitations, and evaluate it through industry-recognized standards, she'll likely make a good choice. But what if there's competition among the people setting the standards? Last month, Underwriters Laboratory — the global leader in product safety standards — announced that it was starting a new PV installer certification program later this summer, one that would compete directly with NABCEP. Naturally, the folks at NABCEP weren't very happy that UL University will use different standards. “We think it's counter-productive to bring new certification standards into a nascent industry. It would be sort of like having multiple inverter safety standards,” says NABCEP Executive Director Ezra Auerbach. “I think it brings confusion to the marketplace.” Auerbach says he is holding out the invitation for UL to use the NABCEP standards. But Brad Smock, general manager of UL University, says that the new competition is a good thing. In recent years, UL has faced competition from other labs doing equipment safety testing. Now, rather than create more confusion, the competition has forced the safety-testing industry to move toward harmonized standards. Smock sees the same thing happening in the PV-installer certification space. “We hope to get to a point where there is more clarity in the market,” says Smock. The company is looking to refine the standards, not create an entirely different set, he says. The UL program will focus exclusively on electricians, setting it apart from NABCEP. Recognizing the importance of NABCEP in the North American market, UL will pursue its certification program more fervently in India and China. (Although the first training sessions will take place in the U.S. at UL's North Carolina headquarters). “Our goal is not to position NABCEP any other way than it already is today,” says Smock. “Everyone in this business is after the same goal — to put a safe product out there for the consumer.” NABCEP's Auerbach doesn't see their goals being totally similar. He criticizes the fact that the UL program will bundle both training programs and certification together. Traditionally, the two have been kept separately to avoid conflicts of interest. But ultimately, Auerbach's frustration comes down to having two sets of certification standards in the market. “We don't need a profusion of standards,” he says. “Why not use an existing certification program to train to?” Responding to the increasing fragmentation, some industry professionals have called for national credentialing standards for renewable energy installers. But that effort doesn't appear to have much political traction for now. In the meantime, as more money flows into this area, the growth in such programs will continue, making education about the myriad choices increasingly important for the industry. To listen to a discussion between Ezra Auerbach, Brad Smock and Jane Weissman, listen to the podcast linked above. Or, to see a video of the roundtable, see the player below.
20 Reader Comments
|
Stephen Lacey
Recent Podcast |
1 of 20
I worked in a Fortune 500 company for many years and the last 5 were specifically in training. We were responsible for training everyone from union Iron-Workers to company Vice Presidents. As a member of the training organization we were given everything we needed to do our job. Consultants in the field of training, strategic planning and program development experts, presentation and video training, adult learning styles, you name it.
The training program design we settled on was ADDIE. The Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation [ADDIE] process. The ADDIE process required that you at least consider all phases of the training although some may not be weighted at heavily as others.
As a now semi-retired Quality Engineer I was lucky enough to be a part of this training organizations for the last 5 years of my working career. Training usually started by doing a job Analysis. This meant that effective training took into consideration things like electrical theory and safety, hand tool and ladder use, and how to walk on lightweight concrete tile for example. Even simple stuff like how to correctly mix concrete for ground mounted support structures. Knowledge of the manufacturers product and how to evaluate a different manufacturers product when it is introduced into the mix is important. Things like one line, design and as-built drawing creation are important for record purposes - just ask your local inspector or customer 10 years from now.
If your training program does not take into consideration at least some of these elements then you would probably not want me to come and audit your training program. Here is one quality strategy which might help: "If you want to know what quality training is - ask your customers".
That's My Opinion - What's Yours?
tomgarven@hotmail.com