<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>And it's definitely back in 2014. <br><br>Typos courtesy of my iPhone. </div><div><br>On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Jason Szumlanski <<a href="mailto:jason@fafcosolar.com">jason@fafcosolar.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I had to quit watching at noon, so I was disappointed to have missed the theatrics. I just installed a system on my home to NEC 2008 as is followed here. I have convinced a local plans reviewer that since it was removed in NEC 2011, the building official should waive the 690.47(D) requirement for rooftop systems. He specifically asked me if it would return in NEC 2014, and if I am reading this right, the answer is definitely "no."</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Since there was no aesthetically acceptable way to run the additional GEC in my case and make it "as close as practicable (which is ambiguous anyway), I cut it out immediately following inspection - something I would NEVER recommend a customer do, of course. Nonetheless, I feel this was a reasonable and acceptable move given that there are thousands of systems out there inspected under NEC 2011 that have not additional grounding electrode.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I will continue to listen with great interest...</div><br><div id="WISESTAMP_SIG_gmail_session">
<div style="font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><div style="margin:0 0 8px 0"><p style="margin:0"><span><span>Jason Szumlanski</span></span></p><p style="margin:0"></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
Fafco Solar</div><br> <p></p><div style="clear:both"></div></div><img src="https://wisestamp.appspot.com/pixview.gif?p=chrome&v=3.21.0&t=1386616464493&u=ce9344a8140ce271" width="1" height="1"></div></div><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Richard L Ratico <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Richard.L.Ratico@valley.net" target="_blank">Richard.L.Ratico@valley.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Mr. Holt explicitly stated his desire to create a groundswell of opinion to<br>
immediately eliminate this requirement of the code. Would it not be better to<br>
carefully think through and discuss the issue, in contrast to what was permitted<br>
on his "show"?</blockquote></div><br><br></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>List sponsored by Home Power magazine</span><br><span></span><br><span>List Address: <a href="mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Change email address & settings:</span><br><span><a 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></span><br><span></span><br><span>List-Archive: <a href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>List rules & etiquette:</span><br><span><a href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm">www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Check out participant bios:</span><br><span><a href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org">www.members.re-wrenches.org</a></span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>