I don't believe I need re-educated on what qualifies as a back-fed device. I agree with what you say as far as the requirement is [likely] to prevent inadvertent disconnecting of a back-fed plug-in breaker, so the stabs will not be floating in mid air and energized, not to mention the potential fault created if disconnected under load. In the case of a combination service disconnecting means, GTI disconnecting means breaker, that would not be the case (at least not sustained, as there could still be enough incident energy to establich an arc fault if disconnected under load)... but I essentially agree.
Originally Posted by jaggedben
However, 408.36(D) does not say that. It simply requires back-fed plug-in devices to be secured in place... period ...no elaboration on reason or purpose. So you're either going to have to qualify the PV GTI breaker as not being a back-fed device... or put in on the load side of a service disconnecting means... if you don't want to secure it in place.
Another option (though compliant implementation will be significantly delayed ) is to propose a change to 705.12(D) so as to include a "modification" for line-side connections, similar to thatof 705.12(D)(6) for load-side connections.
I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.