Solar PV Installations & EICR's

I'd be interested to hear how others are handling solar PV installations as part of an EICR, especially the DC side.

The AC connection to the inverter is relatively straightforward to include, but the DC wiring, roof array, connectors and DC isolators are more challenging, particularly where access is limited or the inspector does not have specific PV competence.

The question was prompted by recent press reports of a school fire where the solar installation was reported as a possible cause. The system was said to have been installed around 10 to 12 years earlier, so in theory may have been through more than one periodic inspection cycle.

So, in practice:

Do you include the PV DC side within the EICR, or limit the inspection to the AC supply circuit and inverter connection?

If excluded, how do you word the limitation?

Would visible PV defects still be coded if outside the agreed scope?

Where roof access is not available, do you recommend a separate specialist PV inspection?

And more broadly, should PV systems have their own defined periodic inspection regime, especially on schools, commercial buildings and higher-risk sites?

I’m interested in how this is being handled in the real world, because there seems to be a possible gap between a building having an EICR and the PV system being meaningfully inspected.

Parents
  • I think there does need to be some more inspection, though physically inspecting PV panels is going to be expensive. There was one locally a few weeks ago, I was talking to a Company who work in the area, they know who fitted them, they think it was a poor connection that overheated. They say it is very rare to have a damaged panel, and even more rare for a panel to cause overheating within the panel.

    On my own panels, they sit flat on the rafter, on a slim plastic plate, the connections are not accessible, being under the panels, so any inspection of the terminals/fly lead connectors will need removal of the panels.

    Link to the local fire below:

    Keswick solar fire.

  • they think it was a poor connection that overheated

    That seems likely at such an early point in the building's lifetime. Perhaps it was a simple as a plug and socket not being pushed fully home?

    Deterioration due to age, or vermin attack seems very unlikely.

  • On my own panels, they sit flat on the rafter, on a slim plastic plate, the connections are not accessible, being under the panels,

    Does that conform to BS 7671 (Regulation 526.3)?

    I agree that the termination of the cable to the connector could be considered to meet 526.3 (d), but the mating of the connectors is not covered by any of the exceptions in the Regulation and therefore should be accessible for inspection?

Reply
  • On my own panels, they sit flat on the rafter, on a slim plastic plate, the connections are not accessible, being under the panels,

    Does that conform to BS 7671 (Regulation 526.3)?

    I agree that the termination of the cable to the connector could be considered to meet 526.3 (d), but the mating of the connectors is not covered by any of the exceptions in the Regulation and therefore should be accessible for inspection?

Children
  • 526.3 (f) might apply: see manufacturer's instructions.

  • 526.3 (f) might apply: see manufacturer's instructions.

    Highly unlikely. MC4s are not to BS 5733, but to BS EN 62548. As far as I'm aware, there is no indiciation of 'maintenance free' in the product standard, and MC4s do not carry the 'MF' (in a circle) symbol.