<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>Re: [RE-wrenches] Landing into a sub-panel without a main
service panel, just a main switch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:41:24 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Ray Walters <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ray@solarray.com"><ray@solarray.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>JRQ <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:quackkcauq@yahoo.com"><quackkcauq@yahoo.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
HI Jeffrey;<br>
<br>
Electricity certainly can flow in both directions on a conductor
(unless they've installed huge diodes). If there is a short circuit
in the smallest conductor feeding one of the subpanels (I'm guessing
#6) The short circuit would be fed by up to 260 amps without
tripping an OCPD anywhere. In this particular case 705.12 actually
makes more sense than when just applied to a bussbar. Tapping the
solar into the load side makes a dangerous situation even worse.<br>
You're right, it's not a problem if everything is operating
normally, but breakers don't do anything normally either. It's when
something bad happens (like a rodent chewing through some wiring)
that the breakers and their ratings suddenly become the difference
between a power outage or a structure fire.<br>
Allan Sindelar taught me the importance of exactly wording your
permit to limit the scope of work and your potential liability.<br>
In this case, I would replace the 200A main with a larger load
center (as I said before) and purposely word the permit to not take
responsibility for any distribution wiring beyond the new load
center. A line side tap would do the same thing, but is the
coward's way out. If there is an electrical problem later, they
could still blame the new 10 KW PV system on the roof. Whether its
making some electrical improvements or reroofing, I always try to
make things better when I add a PV system. <br>
<br>
Ray<br>
<br>
On 12/22/2011 8:05 PM, JRQ wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1324609518.2696.YahooMailNeo@web39305.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div>The flow of electricity isn't two-way traffic along a
conductor. If there are no loads on the conductor between the
main system disconnect and the main breaker of a subpanel, in
this scenario, there can only be up to 200 A coming from the
utility OR up to 60 A coming from the solar system backfed
through the subpanel. , logically it follows that the sum of
the OCPDs supplying that conductor and the main disconnect is
200 A <i>or</i> 60 A, but not 260 A.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Furthermore, the alternate interpretation misunderstands
the rule in this context.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeffrey Quackenbush</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman',
'new york', times, serif; ">
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman',
'new york', times, serif; "> <font face="Arial" size="2">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b>
Ray Walters <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ray@solarray.com"><ray@solarray.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> JRQ <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:quackkcauq@yahoo.com"><quackkcauq@yahoo.com></a>;
RE-wrenches <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org"><re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org></a>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [RE-wrenches] Landing into a sub-panel without a main
service panel, just a main switch<br>
</font> <br>
<div id="yiv1407487524">
<div> I'm not a huge fan of this 120% rule myself, but if
you're going to apply it properly, it applies to all of
the conductors, buss bar, cables, etc. between the main
disco to all of the sub panels. This rule is not
limited just to a load center buss(read 705.12D2), it
applies to all the conductors, and clearly says the sum
of breakers feeding in (200 + 40) can't exceed 120% of
the rating of any of the conductors between the main and
the subpanel main breakers. <br>
This is an interesting situation, where apparently the
original electrical work took liberal advantage of the
tap rules in 240.21. 705.12, however, doesn't have any
exemptions that include the tap rules, so actually it
would be applied to the smallest conductor. If any of
the conductors between the 200 amp main and sub panels
is less than 200 amp rating, you're off to a bad start.
<br>
<br>
Here's how I would fix it: Charge extra to put in a new
250 amp rated load center, with a 200 amp main breaker,
feed all the subpanels with breakers properly sized for
the various conductors, and then leave yourself a nice
60 amp breaker on the far end of the buss for your 10 KW
PV system. It's not a service upgrade (you're still at
200 amps), you've made the house much safer, and you've
fixed your PV intertie issues as well. Besides being PV
installers, we ARE electricians, and we should be fixing
bogus wiring when it also benefits the PV install. Then
all of us could sleep better.<br>
<br>
Ray<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>