[RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

Jason Szumlanski Jason at fafcosolar.com
Fri Sep 30 06:58:56 PDT 2011


I've been banging my head against a wall for almost two years on this
issue as microinverters have gained traction and combining several
circuits in a PV subpanel is common, even on residential jobs. I'll take
another run at it and see how it goes. We've been doing lots of supply
side connections because of this issue, which adds a fusible disconnect
to the design.

 

Thank you all very much for the feedback.

 

Jason Szumlanski

Fafco Solar

 

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:21 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

 

Agreed. The intent of the change to 690.64(B) in NEC 2008 was not to
restrict the use of a dedicated inverter aggregation subpanel for
amp-shaving purposed (meaning the panel is being used to reduce the PV
CB size ultimately used for 120% rule calculations). The intent was to
clarify the that there is no need to apply the 120% rule to
progressively larger upstream breakers when the interconnection happens
in a subpanel. 

A reasonable inspector or jurisdiction will interpret the Code
consistent with its intent, not according to an unintended consequence.
However, you may have to educate them about the distinction between the
two possible interpretations.

David Brearley, Senior Technical Editor
SolarPro magazine 

On 9/29/11 1:50 PM, "Mark Frye" <markf at berkeleysolar.com> wrote:

OK, this subject has come up before and this is a gray area in the Code.
What is the definition of "the output of the inverters."

I have sucessfully argued that the output of the inverters is the last
point in the circuit where the circuit is free of premise load circuits.
In this case it would be the 40A breaker connecting the dedicated PV
load center to the busbar of the main panel.

So...it is between you and you inspector. Tell him you are going to put
a label on the subpanel that says something to the effect of "Dedicated
inverter output accumulation subpanel. Add no additional circuits."

I think this is a much better interpretation and method that preserves a
clean and functional load side connection topology. I think most
reasonable inspectors would agree as well.

Good Luck.

Mark Frye 
Berkeley Solar Electric Systems 
303 Redbud Way 
Nevada City,  CA 95959 
(530) 401-8024 
www.berkeleysolar.com <http://www.berkeleysolar.com/> 
 

________________________________

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Szumlanski
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:33 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

I understand what you are saying about the 40A breaker, but according to
690.64(B)(2), "...with panelboards connected in series, the rating of
the *first* overcurrent device connected *directly* to the output of the
inverters shall be used in the calculations for *all* busbars and
conductors." The way I have seen that interpreted is that the main
distribution panel needs to be rated to support 120% of the two inverter
circuits plus the main breaker, regardless of the fact that there is a
40A backfeed breaker in the main panel.
 
200+30+15 > 200 x 1.2
 
I know it doesn't make much sense, but that's the way it's been
interpreted around here. It stands to reason that this applies only to
the PV subpanel busbar and the conductors between the panels, and that
the calculation for those should be:
 
(30 + 15 + 40) / 1.2 = 70.83A required ampacity
 
...and the calculation for the main distribution panel should be:
 
(200 + 40) / 1.2 = 200A required ampacity
 
... but that's not what I am being told.
 

Jason Szumlanski
Fafco Solar
 
 

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Frye
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:19 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

Jason:

SB 5000 = 21A @ 240V, 21A x 1.25 = 26.3A needs 30A breaker
M215 = 0.9 A @ 240V, 0.9A x 9 = 8.1 A, 8.1 x 1.25 = 10.1A needs 15A
breaker. (Or that rounded to 10A and use a 10A breaker)?

26.3A + 10.1A = 36.4 A needs 40A breaker

So, get a new 100A main lug subpanel. Connect it to a 40A breaker in the
existing main panel. Move the existing 30A breaker into the new subpanel
and install the new 15A breaker into the same.

Mark Frye 
Berkeley Solar Electric Systems 
303 Redbud Way 
Nevada City,  CA 95959 
(530) 401-8024 
www.berkeleysolar.com <http://www.berkeleysolar.com/> 


  

________________________________


From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Szumlanski
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:55 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System
That's not a bad idea, except that 690.64(B)(2) requires that the
breaker directly connected to each inverter(s) must be used for the
calculation.
 
I have an existing SB5000 with a 30A breaker and a new string of nine
Enphase M215's requiring a 15A breaker. If you combine these in a 100A
or higher rated subpanel with a 40A main breaker, you still calculate
the total current supplying the busbar in the main distribution panel
based on 200A + 30A + 15A = 245A (with 30A and 15A being the overcurrent
protection directly connected to the inverters). This exceeds the 120%
rule by 5A. It also requires that the ampacity of the conductors between
the two panels be 85A / 1.2 = 70.83A (assuming a 40A backfeed breaker in
the main distribution panel). If your interpretation is different,
please let me know!
 
If my interpretation is correct, I like the idea of just adding a
fusible disconnect and using #10 conductors all the way to the tap. That
would be the most cost effective solution I believe, and since there is
no foreseeable further system rating increases, the advantage of a
subpanel is reduced.
 
 
Thanks for all the other suggestions provided. Unfortunately I can't put
in smaller main breaker, and the busbar in the main panel is definitely
rated 200A.
 

Jason Szumlanski
Fafco Solar
 

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Glenn
Burt
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:40 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

How about feeding both systems into an AC combining subpanel before
feeding the main load center?
Often the calculations required will allow you to do more backfeeding
than the simple backfeeding a load center with individual breakers.
 
-Glenn
 

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Szumlanski
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:49 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Adding on to existing PV System

We've been contracted to add on to an existing PV system in a residence.
The existing system has a 30A 2P Breaker on a 200A rated panel with a
200A main breaker. The new system would require a 15A breaker, which
would exceed the limit in NEC 690.64(B)(2).
 
The existing system has a fusible AC disconnect mounted next to the
meter. This was originally intended as the utility external disconnect.
The utility no longer requires a disconnect, but if we do a supply side
connection, we would need a fusible AC disconnect anyway for the new
system. I would collocate the new disconnect with the old.
 
Does anyone see any problem with doing a supply size connection for the
new system? Any labeling snags that I might need to consider?
 
Jason Szumlanski
Fafco Solar

________________________________

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20110930/b457c065/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the RE-wrenches mailing list