I watched most of the streaming video of Mike Holt and six PV industry
professionals this weekend. The most interesting aspect of it was Mr. Holt's
very dramatic build up to the Sunday discussion of Article 690.47(D) which
brings back the requirement for an auxiliary grounding electrode for PV arrays.
He used everything short of drum rolls to build anticipation for this part of
the presentation.

Having personally contributed a short piece on this subject for SolarPro
magazine along with Bill Brooks and John Wiles in 2008, I looked forward to this
discussion. Finally, midday Sunday, instead of a discussion of an important and
controversial part of the 2014 code, we received a rant by Mr. Holt demanding an
immediate and unprecedented withdrawal of the article. 

Prior to his remarks, in contrast to the preceding article discussions, Mr. Holt
asked that the guest panel not make any comments that would explain how the
requirement came to return to the code after being eliminated in the 2011
edition, or any comment that might "confuse" the issue. To my very great
surprise and disappointment, they complied, uttering not a single word, nodding
their heads and moving on to the next article.

After all the buildup by Mr. Holt, the "discussion" amounted to his monolog,
which if parsed, though stated to be for safety concerns, seemed primarily an
exercise designed to sell his books, videos and consulting services on
grounding. This was of course expected. The weekend live streaming was
generously offered free of charge, a rare opportunity to hear current PV expert
opinion on the NEC. My concern is that Mr. Holt's control of the process here
inhibited the dialog that should have taken place.

There are significant implications of allowing his opinion to go unchallenged.
Is there, or is there not, any merit in 690.47(D)? Could the language be better?
Could the requirement be modified to make it better rather than simply
discarding it? Does accepting his argument mean all those systems installed
according to the 2008 code are unsafe?

Mr. Holt explicitly stated his desire to create a groundswell of opinion to
immediately eliminate this requirement of the code. Would it not be better to
carefully think through and discuss the issue, in contrast to what was permitted
on his "show"?

Dick Ratico
Solarwind Electric


--- You wrote:
Dear Wrenches,

Several of your co-wrenches are helping Mike Holt with the video 
companion to his PV & the NEC 2014 book. So since you spend all your 
weekdays thinking about the NEC, what better way to spend this weekend 
than to watch NEC nerds discuss the meanings of shalls and shall-nots, 
the unwelcome return of 690.47(D), and the continued flights of our 
favorite sections to 705, right? Before you answer that, know that you 
can also ask questions during the video in case something is unclear or 
if we're wrong about something.

Broadcasting (free) from:
www.MikeHolt.com/live

Times:
~9a-4p ET Sat 12/7
~9a-5p ET Sun 12/8

Video from this weekend will be what's edited into the official DVD that 
Mike puts out in the next few weeks.

Because Bill Brooks has a great joke about separate direct-current 
grounding electrode systems bonded to the alternating current grounding 
electrode systems that you don't want to miss,
Dave

PS If this post violates list etiquette, my apologies in advance, 
Michael. We don't get a commission, if that helps...
_______________________________________
--- end of quote ---

