I still don't agree with the last part, in principle or in details. The type of connection is defined by where it is, regardless of how many there are.
And I agree with your second sentence. What's lacking is agreement in what defines where this/these connection(s) is/are.
FWIW, 690.17(A) of the 2014 edition expands on the possible disconnecting means to permit a
listed "...PV molded-case circuit breaker marked for use in PV systems". If using such breakers for the inverter output, I'd be willing to cede that more than one breaker can exist between inverter output and service conductor and still be a supply-side connection.
Also, a load side connection can be in a MCB service panel, with no feeder.
In this case, the feeder is the panel bus. While it is not a feeder conductor of the wire type usually associated with the term feeder, the panel bus is a circuit conductor which does fall under the definition of a feeder.
Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment,
the source of a separately derived system, or other
power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent
device.
Which brings up another issue that many misinterpret... The
service equipment of an MCB service panel ends at the MCB. The rest of the panel, including the bus, is
not service equipment.
You may think I'm side stepping the issue, but I think I'm disagreeing that your issue is relevant or usefully defined.
What we deem it as is irrelevant, as it amounts to what it is either way...
First, let's stay away from the term 'PV System conductor' (which to me implies DC). We are talking about 'Inverter Output Circuits' in this thread, which are defined.
Let's not. What it implies to you is also irrelevant. You should know by now we are talking about the AC output(s) of a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System as indicated by the title of Article 690. But if it helps the discussion, I'll try to refrain from using the term...
Again, a feeder that meets your definition can still be part of an Inverter Output Circuit; the two uses are not mutually exclusive. And it is certainly the case that such a feeder can be subject to the rules in 705.
I believe you misunderstand. What I am calling a feeder is any circuit conductor which is neither a power supply source or branch circuit conductor... period. It is a feeder by definition, no matter how much you attempt to construe meanings by the use of various terms, whether defined or implied.
If there's a sticky issue, maybe it's whether the 'Inverter Output' is part of the 'PV system.'
Quite likely you are correct in a sense. Article 690 does not clarify whether the inverter output circuit ends at its disconnecting means or OCPD. I'm well aware the output extends beyond the disconnecting means and OCPD. What I am trying to distinguish is the PV System ends at the inverter output OCPD and no longer under the scope of Article 690, just like a service ends at the service equipment and no longer under the scope of Article 230.
But I don't think that actually affects the clarity of which 705 rules apply to certain types/sections of inverter output circuits, which was the original subject of this thread (to which we are now barely hanging on). Those sections are written clearly enough to not be affected by that issue. Maybe some other sections of the code still need clarity on the issue (disconnect requirements in 690, for example), but I don't see what it has to do with what's been discussed in this thread already.
No response necessary here after the replies I have provided above... :happyno: