Solar PV Installations & EICR's

An interesting topic, and I am afraid that I do not have the answers, but in the absence of any other responses, here are some thoughts (from a domestic perspective).

Gordon Routledge said:

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.

I think that a visual inspection is all that could reasonably be expected. You could go up in a cherry picker, but there seem to be plenty of people online offering inspection by drone. (I might add that my insurer will not cover my flat roof unless it is subject to periodic inspection, which seems to be by drone nowadays.)

Gordon Routledge said:

If excluded, how do you word the limitation?

Along the lines of, "Equipment in spaces which are not readily accessible (e.g. loft spaces) is not included."

Gordon Routledge said:

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

The model form in Appendix 6 and the schedule of inspections give little guidance - see page 555 of BOB.

Gordon Routledge said:

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

No, but I do wonder why the scope would not include defects which were visible from the ground.

Given that batteries should be installed outdoors (PAS 63100), is it better to have them outdoors but inaccessible, or indoors, but accessible. My feeling is the latter.

Gordon Routledge said:

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

Perhaps larger ones should, but I would expect that such premises would have a maintenance schedule in any event.

Gordon Routledge said:

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 correct answer is in the NOTE to Regulation 712.6.101 of BS 7671, that is, use relevant parts of BS EN 62446 series ... although whether this happens in reality is of course open to question.

BS EN 62446-2 should be used for maintenance, and relevant parts of BS EN 62446-1 and BS EN 62446-2 for periodic inspection and testing.

PV systems may well require more frequent inspection and testing (and maintenance) than the AC side of the electrical installation ... certainly this will be the case for many private domestic installations.

gkenyon said:

PV systems may well require more frequent inspection and testing (and maintenance) than the AC side of the electrical installation ... certainly this will be the case for many private domestic installations.

I think most domestic PV owners work on an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" basis.  If the inverter is generating, the most that needs doing is the occasional washing of the panels. Nothing will be inspected, ever.

Almost certainly.

Here on the sunny south coast, I have never seen anybody washing panels (although they might be reachable by window cleaners with those long fibreglass poles) and no obvious inspections.

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.

In a way this isn't a new question - we've had the same quandary for some time now for things like central heating controls and even alarm systems (for the latter who checks the ELV side is really properly isolated from the mains?)

I guess the official answer is that it's a matter of contract as to what's included and excluded from a particular job. I suspect the practice is that the inspector excludes everything they're not happy to do and the householder, having obtained "a piece of paper" is happy not to look too deeply into the details of what has and hasn't been covered for fear of creating more hassle (and expense) for themselves.

   - Andy.

gkenyon said:

The correct answer is in the NOTE to Regulation 712.6.101 of BS 7671, that is, use relevant parts of BS EN 62446 series ... although whether this happens in reality is of course open to question.

BS EN 62446-2 should be used for maintenance, and relevant parts of BS EN 62446-1 and BS EN 62446-2 for periodic inspection and testing.

Thank you, Graham.

I suggest that on that basis, an EICR to BS 7671 would concern itself with everything on the a.c. side of the switch, and BS EN 62446 would be used for a separate inspection of the panels, inverter, battery, etc. up to the switch.

So two separate I&Ts, but they could, of course, be done together.

AJJewsbury said:

I guess the official answer is that it's a matter of contract as to what's included and excluded from a particular job.

Agreed. It would seem reasonable to include a visual inspection of any accessible parts of the solar PV equipment.

alanblaby said:

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.

From October 2026, if you are a member of a CPS and you are involved in solar PV or battery installations, you will need to have the relevant Electrician+ qualification. If you do not, you will not be able to demonstrate appropriate competence. The reasonable implication would seem to be that if you do not hold these qualifications that cover design, installation, commissioning, inspection and testing, you could not demonstrate competence if you are carrying out a periodic inspection of such systems.

I guess it is a bit like not having formally recognised competence in understanding the requirements of 7671. One might conclude that you can hardly be formally recognised as competent to carry out periodic inspection activity of any type of installation within its scope.

We make it abundantly clear under the Extent and Limitations section on the EICR that the scope of the inspection specifically excludes all parts of the solar PV and battery system. 

alanblaby said:

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?