[RE-wrenches] combiners and the 120% rule

Kent Osterberg kent at coveoregon.com
Sun Jul 1 08:53:18 PDT 2012


I agree with Jason that the panel, as described, would be capable of 
supplying multiple branch circuits and could be deemed non-compliant, 
but I've found inspectors here to be reasonable about this practice. 
It's perfectly safe to add a branch circuit, even multiple ones, to an 
ac combiner. As long as it is for operating associated equipment such as 
communications devices like the Envoy, or data loggers, or power to 
operate a tracker controller and motor, it should be allowed.

Consider a 100-amp panel being used as an ac combiner with four 20-amp 
circuit breakers being backfed with micro-inverters. A few small loads 
on this panel just lowers the current on the bus bars. The risk that the 
120% rule is supposed to address is the possibility of overloading the 
bus bars. In the case of the ac combiner that could happen if someone 
were to add some very large loads to it.

Kent Osterberg
Blue Mountain Solar, Inc.
www.bluemountainsolar.com
t: 541-568-4882


On 7/1/2012 6:46 AM, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
> Well, if you install a bunch of 2-pole breakers for the.inverters, and 
> then add a single pole breaker for the Envoy, there is definitely one 
> space left and the panel would be "capable" of supplying additional 
> branch circuits.
>
> Just being devil's advocate here... I'm with you, but we need more 
> clarity and less room for interpretation on this matter.
>
> Jason Szumlanski
> Fafco Solar
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Kirk <kirk at vtsolar.com 
> <mailto:kirk at vtsolar.com>> wrote:
>
>     I would argue a single dedicated load circuit for the Enphase
>     Envoy, in a dedicated inverter combiner panel, is code legal. Why?
>     Because 705.12 states the distribution equipment must be capable
>     of supplying "multiple branch circuits" for the 120% rule to
>     apply. A single  dedicated circuit for the Envoy appears to
>     comply. Use a load center with a lockable cover if there are extra
>     slots and you have done due diligence.
>
>     Kirk Herander
>     VSE
>
>     On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jason Szumlanski
>     <jason at fafcosolar.com <mailto:jason at fafcosolar.com>> wrote:
>
>>     If you install a combiner panel that can supply additional branch
>>     circuits, it becomes part of the building distribution system.
>>     Note that Enphase recommends you install a branch circuit to
>>     supply power to the Envoy device right from the combiner panel.
>>     If that is the case, the panel is certainly part of the building
>>     distribution system and is obviously capable of supplying branch
>>     circuits, in which case the 120% rule would apply. I don't like
>>     it and I don't necessarily agree with it, but based on my strict
>>     interpretation of the code I can see why an AHJ would require
>>     application of this section in this case.
>>
>>     Jason Szumlanski
>>     Fafco Solar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Chris Mason
>>     <cometenergysystems at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         I don't think this is expressed in the code, but in my
>>         opinion, the 120% applies to the building distribution
>>         equipment, not to parts of the solar system. In the case
>>         where a panel is being used to combine multiple inverter
>>         outputs, the panel is part of the solar system only. The 120%
>>         rule was an accommodation to allow solar to feed a building
>>         distribution panel and is not applicable to solar system
>>         components. It would be good if the code could indicate this
>>         more clearly.
>>
>>
>>         On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Jason Szumlanski
>>         <jason at fafcosolar.com <mailto:jason at fafcosolar.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Kirk,
>>
>>             That's basically what I said. Unfortunately, your opinion
>>             holds no weight with my local AHJ's. I've argued the
>>             point till blue in the face. Although, I have never had
>>             the instance where all available slots were filled in the
>>             combiner panel - I might be able to argue that case
>>             successfully.
>>
>>             Jason Szumlanski
>>             Fafco Solar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Kirk Herander
>>             <kirk at vtsolar.com <mailto:kirk at vtsolar.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                 Jason,
>>
>>                 In your email below you state:
>>
>>                 "You DO need to observe the 120% rule for the
>>                 combining subpanel, regardless of whether there are
>>                 loads present, at least in jurisdictions where I have
>>                 worked. I've heard that some inspectors will allow
>>                 you to ignore it if it is labeled as a PV combiner
>>                 with "add no loads" notation."
>>
>>                 NEC 705.12 (D) states that the distribution equipment
>>                 (in this case the combiner panel, fed by multiple
>>                 inverters and a utility source) must be "capable of
>>                 supplying multiple branch circuits or feeders or
>>                 both" for (D)(1) through (7) to apply. If you fully
>>                 populated a combiner panel with inverter breakers,
>>                 leaving no slots for load breakers, it is not capable
>>                 of supplying branch circuits or feeders, and IMO the
>>                 120% rule does not apply to the combiner buss or the
>>                 conductors back to its point of utility interconnect.
>>                 I have argued this point as well as label combiners
>>                 "load circuits prohibited" (with or without available
>>                 slots) and received AHJ approval.
>>
>>                 You could also just lock shut a combiner that had
>>                 spare slots as a deterrent to adding load breakers.
>>
>>                 Kirk Herander
>>
>>                 VT Solar, LLC
>>
>>                 dba Vermont Solar Engineering
>>
>>                 NABCEP^TM Certified installer Charter Member
>>
>>                 NYSERDA-eligible Installer
>>
>>                 VT RE Incentive Program Partner
>>
>>                 802.863.1202 <tel:802.863.1202>
>>
>>                 *From:*re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>                 <mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>                 [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>                 <mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>]
>>                 *On Behalf Of *Jason Szumlanski
>>                 *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:28 AM
>>                 *To:* RE-wrenches
>>                 *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Enphase grid tie question
>>
>>                 I'll email you off-list a 1-line diagram from a
>>                 system with 164 microinverters broken down into 8
>>                 strings in a 208V system. This particular system used
>>                 two subpanels to accumulate PV, but that was only
>>                 because we had to backfeed two existing subpanels due
>>                 to the size of existing 480/208V transformers. You
>>                 will have to look at the utility service and all
>>                 existing equipment.
>>
>>                 Regarding the breakers in the subpanel, you will only
>>                 need a maximum of a 20A breaker for each string. The
>>                 max inverters per string is 25 and the calculation
>>                 for OCPD is:
>>
>>                 215W / 208V x 25 inverters / 1.732 x 1.25 = 18.65A
>>
>>                 "You DO need to observe the 120% rule for the
>>                 combining subpanel, regardless of whether there are
>>                 loads present, at least in jurisdictions where I have
>>                 worked. I've heard that some inspectors will allow
>>                 you to ignore it if it is labeled as a PV combiner
>>                 with "add no loads" notation."
>>
>>                 Use a MLO panel with a fusible disconnect between the
>>                 subpanel and the interconnection point. If you use a
>>                 225A panel, you can feed it with 270A. With eight 20A
>>                 backfed PV circuits, you would need to protect the
>>                 line side of the panel with a 100A fusible
>>                 disconnect. That probably isn't going to work. You
>>                 may be best off from a cost perspective using two
>>                 225A subpanels and two 60A fusible disconnects.
>>                 Anything larger than a 60A 3P disconnect and the
>>                 price skyrockets. It all depends on your circuit
>>                 calculations and the existing equipment. Of course,
>>                 you would need two spaces for your interconnection point.
>>
>>                 Jason Szumlanski
>>
>>                 Fafco Solar
>>
>>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20120701/95311600/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the RE-wrenches mailing list