<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
You might also point out Section 690/3 of the NEC: <br>
<blockquote>690.3 Other Articles. Wherever the requirements of other<br>
articles of this Code and Article 690 differ, the requirements<br>
of Article 690 shall apply and, if the system is operated in<br>
parallel with a primary source(s) of electricity, the requirements<br>
in 705.14, 705.16, 705.32, and 705.143 shall apply.<br>
</blockquote>
Allan<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Allan Sindelar</b></font><br>
<small><a href="mailto:Allan@positiveenergysolar.com"><font
color="#000099" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><u>Allan@positiveenergysolar.com</u></font></a></small><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic
Installer<br>
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional<br>
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician<br>
<b>Positive Energy, Inc.</b><br>
3201 Calle Marie<br>
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507<br>
<b>505 424-1112</b><br>
<a href="http://www.positiveenergysolar.com/" target="_blank"><u>www.positiveenergysolar.com</u></a><o:p></o:p></span></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 722.25pt;"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"></st1:city><st1:state
w:st="on"></st1:state><st1:postalcode w:st="on"></st1:postalcode></st1:place></font><b
style=""><br>
</b></span></p>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span> </div>
<br>
On 12/8/2011 9:42 AM, Hans Frederickson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:011d01ccb5c8$5ae49c00$10add400$@fredelectric.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jason,
I agree that the inspector is wrong. I see two options:
1) Appeal the inspectors ruling with his supervisor(s).
2) Cut in a little flush mount service disconnect adjacent to the main
service panel. You could use a 2-space flush-mount panel like Cutler Hammer
CH2L125FP. This is rated for service entrance use, but does not include a
visible break disconnect (just a breaker), so depending on your utility's
requirements, it might need to be redundant to your fused disconnect
outside.
Regards,
-Hans
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org">re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org">mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jason
Szumlanski
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:22 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Grouping of Service Disconnects
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but.
I have a supply side tap with a fusible disconnect located next to the meter
outside. The tap is in the main distribution panel which is back to back
with the meter inside a finished garage. There is a 200A main breaker in the
MDP. The inspector is insisting that the solar AC disconnect (fusible
disconnect) be located inside the garage next to the MDP. He is saying that
service disconnecting means must be grouped. The inspector acknowledges that
the PV system is considered a separate source, not necessarily a separate
service, but also insists that Section 230 applies.
I pointed out that section 230.72(A) and 230.71(A) apply to grouping of
service disconnects for the SAME service, not grouping of all disconnects
for multiple services. I noted that the location required in 230.70(A)(1)
allows for the disconnect to be outside the building. There is no explicit
requirement for disconnects of separate services to be co-located (grouped).
I also pointed out 690.56(B) which implies that the PV system disconnect can
be located elsewhere if a plaque or directory is supplied. I thought this
was case closed, but he is still not seeing it my way.
I realize that the AHJ could theoretically make the determination that the
disconnect be located inside, but that is not the case he is making. He is
stuck on the grouping aspect. I have provided Enphase's white paper on
disconnecting means and the excellent IAEI articles on the subject. I think
they are interpreting the word "each" in 230.71(A) to mean "all." I'm not
sure.
There is no way that the homeowner will allow a surface mounted fusible
disconnect next to his flush mounted MDP in the garage. The next best
alternative to comply with the inspector is expensive and time consuming,
and a load side connection is out of the question. Not happy right now.
Jason Szumlanski
Fafco Solar
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>
Options & settings:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a>
List-Archive: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a>
List rules & etiquette:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm">www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a>
Check out participant bios:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org">www.members.re-wrenches.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>