[RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System

[Hare, Ed, W1RFI]

I believe that you are right, Jim, although the FCC regulates as much for the consumer as it does for business. FCC does not want to impose any more restrictions on business than is necessary to have a manageable RFI scenario because more stringent regulations would add considerably to the cost of goods across a wide range of technologies.

To have regulations that reduced noise levels to the point where an amateur with a sensitive receiver, antenna and otherwise quiet location would hear no emissions from a neighbor's equipment would probably require 30 to 40 dB lower emissions. This would add very real costs and, with additional shielding needed, add weight to most electronic devices.  I think I can say with certainty that no regulators globally would decrease the permitted emissions labels by even 30 dB. The pushback from manufacturers, consumer groups, economic entities and political pressures would be significant, and if 30 dB more requirements were imposed by some miracle, the resultant cost inflation would cause harm across a wide range of society.  Regulators understand all these factors, and it is all of the factors that are the impetus behind regulations, so it is not just about manufacturers.  Millions of dollars in advocacy costs would not be enough to counter the billions of dollars of opposition and all the technical justifications in the world would not be a match for the economic and social factors involved.

Even if there were room for some improvement, 10 dB would be a lot, and not enough, but that would almost certainly come with a cost of having that improved level be the feared line in the sand below which no further mitigation would be required by anyone.  We do not want this.  The present laws on "harmful interference" offer unconditional protection against interference which seriously degrades a licensed service, even if making more progress towards that ideal is not always as fast as we all would like.

So going head to head with unstoppable forces for complete protection through regulations changes is not the answer because it will not work.  Working with the FCC to get it to act in well-documented cases of harmful interference is one important step that has had significant results, even though there is more that can be done.  Working with cooperative manufacturers to get them to see the reasons that they should improve their products and should develop solutions to remaining problems is another objective that can actually and practically be accomplished and in the case of the solar industry, progress is being made.

Developing industry standards that can address interference at the initial stages is another effective way we can get a good end result to resolve what regulations cannot.  I just finished my third term as the IEEE EMC Society Vice President for Standards. I am now "term limited," but helped to groom a successor who will also work towards helping industry develop good EMC standards. (The new VP for Standards is Karen Burnham, KE8GVH.)  I am poised next year to take on a leadership role in the EMC Society Standards Development and Education Committee, basical the EMC-Society standards board. I also serve as the primary representative on the US C63 EMC committee, that writes standards that are often adopted by the FCC by reference.  I chair its subcommittee on immunity.   All of this work has resulted in some important industry standards. I wrote a section in on a C63 standard incorporated into the rules on distance extrapolation for measurements of field strength and the IEEE is just now balloting a standard for power companies to use to respond to RFI complaints. This will also serve as a model for other similar standards, such as solar power, which is work I will continue to do going forward.

Each of these steps builds on previous steps, not only solving some of the problems that amateurs are facing, but bring amateur radio into modern technology as a significant contributor.  I learned decades ago to build on every opportunity, build bridges instead of opposition and even the infamous BPL wars were won by working cooperatively with industry, to the point where cooperation resulted in international ITU regulations that avoided the use of amateur spectrum for BPL.

This is how it is done and it is why I keep those doors of communication open with Solar Edge, the FCC and the major industry contacts that have built from earlier succcesses.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab Manager

________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org at contesting.com> on behalf of Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 3:04 PM
To: rfi at contesting.com <rfi at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System

On 12/23/2022 8:59 AM, David Eckhardt wrote:
> I still believe the standards should be revisited wrt radiated emission
> levels and measurement philosophies.

Hi Dave,

Like you, I'm well into my 6th decade as a ham, and in those years, I've
paid as much attention to politics as to ham radio. The likelihood of
FCC Regs being re-written to make them harder on business is ZERO.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi