PG&E offered us a program and left us with defective HVAC, CO detectors that won't pass and don't know what to do

[hellofriend123]

I live in Northern California in the valley. PG&E has been charging customers for quite some time now an additional $5 for their Energy Assistance Savings Program. We qualified as low income and so they told us they were going to contract another company to come out and give us a new heater, HVAC mainframe, CO detectors installed, and a water heater.

The third party is a small private company in town their employees not only stole from us, but now that it is getting hot, our HVAC doesn't work; CO detectors are at the top of the wall next to the corner where the ceiling meets (which by the time they would sound we would be dead); we have filed a police report and emailed and called countless times to both companies to have them come out and finish inspecting and repair our system to a workable status and they just stone wall us. Now I have a contractor coming tomorrow that I have to pay to fix what was never broken or had issues prior. I cannot afford $12000 for a new system. I am a home owner.

With everything basically in limbo, I am not sure if this rises to the level of criminal but do I have a case here or are there any laws in place that I can reference here that protect home owners from predatory low-income customer programs? Thanks.

 

[quincy]

Did you hire this latest contractor to come out to do repairs?

If the employees of the private company stole from you, you rightly reported the thefts to the police.

I doubt you will get any relief from PG&E. The company filed for bankruptcy, was granted a $375 million rate hike by California regulators, and is now seeking an additional $22/mo rate increase to help cover the billions it owes after the wildfires.

Your rates are going up not down.

An interesting note: The bankruptcy judge in the PG&E case okayed PG&E's requested employee bonus payments, in the amount of $235 million.

 

[justalayman]

So, what did it actually cost you to have all the new stuff installed?

 

[quincy]

And were you offered a payment plan to fit your budget?

 

[Zigner]

There is nothing wrong with placing the CO2 detector at ceiling height: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536403

CONCLUSIONS:
As would have been predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, CO infused anywhere within the chamber diffused until it was of equal concentration throughout. Mixing would be even faster in the home environment, with drafts due to motion or temperature. It would be reasonable to place a residential CO alarm at any height within the room.

 

[quincy]

It is true, however, that the CO detectors are generally placed near the floor.

 

[Zigner]

It is true, however, that the CO2 detectors are generally placed near the floor.

Yes, but they don't need to be. There is nothing wrong with putting it near, at, or on the ceiling.

 

[quincy]

Yes, but they don't need to be. There is nothing wrong with putting it near, at, or on the ceiling.

Many are a plug-in design, which is why you see them placed low.

 

[xylene]

I like head height. Good balance and easy to reach.

 

[quincy]

I like head height. Good balance and easy to reach.

That could be a plus. But Zigner is right that there is nothing in California's Code that requires special height placement.

 

[justalayman]

There is nothing wrong with placing the CO2 detector at ceiling height: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536403

CONCLUSIONS:
As would have been predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, CO infused anywhere within the chamber diffused until it was of equal concentration throughout. Mixing would be even faster in the home environment, with drafts due to motion or temperature. It would be reasonable to place a residential CO alarm at any height within the room.

I disagree but am finding support difficult. I believe placement would be disallowed similarly to the placement allowances for a smoke detector.

The area on a wall near a ceiling or on the ceiling near a wall is a dead air space Due to that there is no regular air exchange and as such, a detector placed in this area may never be exposed to the contaminated air. Even if it is it is quite likely to be delayed due to the lack of air movement in the space of concern



Your citation is speaking of elevation only which in itself is less relevant than the placement in relation to the ceiling.

I’ve installed thousands of smoke alarms in my life. There is a prohibition if placing them in this same dead airspace. There is no reason to believe it wouldn’t also apply to co detectors. The specs changed a few years back and I don’t have the current specs committed to memory but will continue to search for them as well as whether it appplies to co detectors. I did find one source that did state this as applying to co detectors but that isn’t enough, to me, to make it wholly reliable.

 

[justalayman]

Here Kidde recommends no less than 6” from the ceiling if on a wall nor less than 6” from the wall if on the ceiling.

https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/what_is_the_best_placement_for_alarms_.aspx

That placement would support my statement

 

[quincy]

I disagree but am finding support difficult. I believe placement would be disallowed similarly to the placement allowances for a smoke detector.

The area on a wall near a ceiling or on the ceiling near a wall is a dead air space Due to that there is no regular air exchange and as such, a detector placed in this area may never be exposed to the contaminated air. Even if it is it is quite likely to be delayed due to the lack of air movement in the space of concern



Your citation is speaking of elevation only which in itself is less relevant than the placement in relation to the ceiling.

I’ve installed thousands of smoke alarms in my life. There is a prohibition if placing them in this same dead airspace. There is no reason to believe it wouldn’t also apply to co detectors. The specs changed a few years back and I don’t have the current specs committed to memory but will continue to search for them as well as whether it appplies to co detectors. I did find one source that did state this as applying to co detectors but that isn’t enough, to me, to make it wholly reliable.

https://law.onecle.com/california/health/division-13/index.html
Then see Chapter 4 section 18935, Part 2, building standards.

 

[Zigner]

Here Kidde recommends no less than 6” from the ceiling if on a wall nor less than 6” from the wall if on the ceiling.

https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/what_is_the_best_placement_for_alarms_.aspx

That placement would support my statement

The link you provided also allows for ceiling placement. They do recommend placement at least 6" from the junction of the ceiling and the wall. The study I linked to found that CO2 disperses evenly throughout the room. I do agree that the detector should be placed according to the manufacturers recommendations/requirements.

 

[quincy]

The building code is not specific. It goes by manufacturer recommendation.