<div dir="ltr">I support Bill's assertion here and his work on the code making committee.<div><br></div><div>Certain AHJ's in California are obsessing about center-fed residential panels. (County of Santa Barbara, for example) The result is unnecessary meter-main panel upgrades. These upgrades drive the cost of solar installations up significantly ($2000-$4000.) This added cost acts as barrier-to-entry into the solar market. </div><div><br></div><div>The problem with all of this is that <b>center-fed residential panels are not a safety problem to begin with. </b><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thus, we get: A) increased cost, B) fewer solar installations and C) no improvement in overall safety. </div><div><br></div><div>Put simply, <b>this is a lose-lose situation that needs to be addressed now</b>, because adoption of the 2017 code is a long way away for most of us.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Best regards,<div><br></div><div>Abe</div><div>-----------------------------</div><div>John Abraham Powell</div><div>CEO</div><div>Solforce</div><div>W. 805/695-0015</div><div>C. 805/895-2355</div><div>E. <a href="mailto:abe@solforce.com" target="_blank">abe@solforce.com</a></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><a href="http://www.solforce.com" target="_blank">www.solforce.com</a></span><br></div><div>CA License. 806685</div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:40 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:billbrooks7@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">billbrooks7@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Chris,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">While John’s article may seem like a logical interpretation of the 2014 NEC, if you lived in the western half of the United States where these panels are common, you would have a very different view of his choice of articles.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">His article sites a technicality that is not a safety concern in the least. Of all the things that AHJs have to worry about with PV, this has to be at the very bottom of the list—and yet this is the only thing that many AHJs look at because someone wrote an article about it. We set the record straight in the 2017 NEC, but that does not fix the fact that literally 1,000s of these perfectly fine panels have been removed due to the focus of this magazine article.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Your opinion of this interpretation would be very different if you had lost a PV system sale because someone was unwilling to incur the extra cost of a panel change out when you knew it was totally unnecessary.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing in the northeast. I’m just helping with some “perspective” from the left coast.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I’m off my high horse,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Bill.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> RE-wrenches [mailto:<a href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Christopher Warfel<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:42 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><tt><span style="font-size:13.5pt">This is a link to John Wiles article on NEC2014 for this topic. To my knowledge, no one has adopted NEC2017, so it would seem that this article is appropriate for the most recent NEC published. As noted AHJs can allow exceptions, and it is great that new language is now approved for NEC2017, but that wasn't the case when John Wiles published his article.</span></tt><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br><br><tt><a href="http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/center-fed-load-centers-and-panelboards/" target="_blank">http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/center-fed-load-centers-and-panelboards/</a></tt><br><br><tt>There is also pdf version here.</tt><br><br><tt><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjl8OmH26TLAhWI7D4KHcbJAHQQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdept-wp.nmsu.edu%2Fswtdi%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F11%2Fiaei_jul-aug_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERV2M21V1nvLlvLVSLZUMoj36J_A&sig2=g145SdF1HzNuHc0P6NXshw&bvm=bv.115339255,d.cWw&cad=rja" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjl8OmH26TLAhWI7D4KHcbJAHQQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdept-wp.nmsu.edu%2Fswtdi%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F11%2Fiaei_jul-aug_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERV2M21V1nvLlvLVSLZUMoj36J_A&sig2=g145SdF1HzNuHc0P6NXshw&bvm=bv.115339255,d.cWw&cad=rja</a></tt><br><br><br><tt>Chris</tt><br><br><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 3/2/2016 2:24 PM, <a href="mailto:billbrooks7@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">billbrooks7@sbcglobal.net</a> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal">All,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more authoritative than JW).<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">705.12(B)(3)(d)<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed panelboard in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of the power source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the current rating of the busbar.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% rule to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from 2005 back to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels did not need the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in California or considering making an official policy accepting the language of the 2017 NEC on this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Bill.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> RE-wrenches [<a href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Glenn Burt<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> RE-wrenches <a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank"><re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org></a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an AHJ.<br><br>Supply side connections are very popular in this situation.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif"><hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:august@luminalt.com" target="_blank">August Goers</a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif"><br></span><b>Sent: </b>3/2/2016 11:32<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif"><br></span><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">RE-wrenches</a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif"><br></span><b>Subject: </b>[RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">All –<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) 120% rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A meter/main combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% rule at all and need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in this case?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">August<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Luminalt<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre><pre>List sponsored by Redwood Alliance<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>List Address: <a href="mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>Change listserver email address & settings:<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>List-Archive: <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>List rules & etiquette:<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><a href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm" target="_blank">www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>Check out or update participant bios:<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><a href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org" target="_blank">www.members.re-wrenches.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u></font></span></pre></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><pre>-- <u></u><u></u></pre><pre>Christopher Warfel, President<u></u><u></u></pre><pre>ENTECH Engineering, Inc.<u></u><u></u></pre><pre>PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><a href="tel:401-466-8978" value="+14014668978" target="_blank">401-466-8978</a><u></u><u></u></pre></font></span></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance<br>
<br>
List Address: <a href="mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a><br>
<br>
Change listserver email address & settings:<br>
<a href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a><br>
<br>
List-Archive: <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html</a><br>
<br>
List rules & etiquette:<br>
<a href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a><br>
<br>
Check out or update participant bios:<br>
<a href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.members.re-wrenches.org</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>