Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Kern County and 705.12(D)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    Not that I don't believe you, but that's an unusual meter main for the Bay Area. I'd be curious to confirm if either or both of the load side breaker slots can't be quadded up with another feeder.
    OK, I checked, and my meter main will accept two quads in the distribution section, sorry I overlooked that possibility. So I now agree that it meets the second condition of the last sentence of 705.12(D) and is thus subject to subitems 1 through 6. Perhaps the hypothetical equipment that can only supply one feeder while being fed by two sources doesn't exist on the market.

    Cheers, Wayne

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    7,837
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    To me it is very clear, so I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation. Here's the sentence again:



    It has two condtions, the two "where" phrases. I am reading condition 2 as being in the context of condition 1 being met, i.e. saying that condition 2 implicitly includes the language "while being so simultaneously fed". Is your interpretation that condition 2 stands-alone, independent of condition 1? Is that the source of our disagreement?

    Cheers, Wayne
    I'm not sure. Any grid tied inverter is connected to the grid in such a way that every piece of gear between the inverter and the service fits the first statement, therefore the second has to be considered in each one of them. The second is where the "capable" language is, and I don't think the way a piece of equipment (a panel, for example) is wired or filled can affect what it is intrinsically capable of.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by ggunn View Post
    I'm not sure. Any grid tied inverter is connected to the grid in such a way that every piece of gear between the inverter and the service fits the first statement, therefore the second has to be considered in each one of them.
    Agreed. I guess my question is why was the second condition written into 705.12(D)? What's an example of equipment (with OCPDs) that can be installed to meet the first clause, but doesn't meet the second clause, because it is only "capable of supplying" one feeder or branch circuit?

    Thanks, Wayne

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    7,837
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    Agreed. I guess my question is why was the second condition written into 705.12(D)? What's an example of equipment (with OCPDs) that can be installed to meet the first clause, but doesn't meet the second clause, because it is only "capable of supplying" one feeder or branch circuit?

    Thanks, Wayne
    An enclosed breaker, maybe?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •