Agreed, more clarity would be a good thing. To keep things in perspective,
you can only get so far trying to protect people from themselves. This past
Friday I found
a GE 30 Amp single pole breaker protecting #12 conductors (and not feeding a
motor). The same 
panel probably contained 4 different brands of breakers. Some of the breakers
had more than one 
conductor under the terminal screw. Any of these common violations are more
likely to cause 
a problem than the scenario this thread discusses.

If the AHJ is agreeable, go for it, and sleep well. Maybe the code commitee will
catch up in 2014.
By then, there will likely be advances in the solar industry that won't be
addressed until 2017. So it goes.

Dick Ratico
Solarwind Electric 


--- You 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@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
--- end of quote ---

