Line Side Tap Neutral count as GEC to main panel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
They are related, certainly. If the grounding conductor does not run from the switch back to the service, then of course the neutral needs to be bonded to it at the switch, but if the grounding conductor does run back to the service, then whether or not the neutral is bonded in the switch is an issue unto itself.
But all service equipment are required to be bonded to the grounded conductor (if there is one).

I know some people interpret Code to mean bonding to the grounded conductor within the enclosure is not required, as it can be bonded via jumper originating in another enclosure... but I see doing it that way as stupidity at its finest... JMO.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
But all service equipment are required to be bonded to the grounded conductor (if there is one).

...

I don't see how, if the disconnect for the PV is not a service disconnecting means (as you argue), that it is still service equipment. I'm looking at the article 100 definitions and article 230 and I don't see it.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I don't see how, if the disconnect for the PV is not a service disconnecting means (as you argue), that it is still service equipment. I'm looking at the article 100 definitions and article 230 and I don't see it.
A solo meter can is not a service disconnecting means and it is NOT service equipment. Is it required to be bonded and how do you bond it?
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
A solo meter can is not a service disconnecting means and it is NOT service equipment. Is it required to be bonded and how do you bond it?

I'm not talking about meter cans and I'm not asking how to bond things. I said:

I don't see how, if the disconnect for the PV is not a service disconnecting means (as you argue), that it is still service equipment.

The service disconnecting means is required subset of the service equipment. If the equipment is service equipment, then it contains a service disconnecting means. If it does not contain a service disconnecting means, then it isn't service equipment. See article 230 part VI.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I'm not talking about meter cans and I'm not asking how to bond things. I said:



The service disconnecting means is required subset of the service equipment. If the equipment is service equipment, then it contains a service disconnecting means. If it does not contain a service disconnecting means, then it isn't service equipment. See article 230 part VI.
Okay...then it's not service equipment and you just proved its not a Service Disconnecting Means... :D
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Okay...then it's not service equipment and you just proved its not a Service Disconnecting Means... :D

You know I don't agree, but for the sake of argument let's continue down that path...

If a service is installed that only connects to a PV system, per 230.2(A)(5), you are saying that it's not a service?
If it is not, do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.2(A)(5) can't both be correct?
Does such a 'service' have any service equipment?
If not, is the equipment that connects the 'service' to the premise required to meet any requirements in article 230?
If not, does that strike you as safe?

If a new set of service entrance conductors are installed that connect only to a PV system, per 230.40 Exception 5, are you saying they are not service entrance conductors?
If it is not, do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.40 Exception 5 can't both be correct?
Do these conductors have to meet any article 230 requirements for service entrance conductors?
If not, does that strike you as safe?
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
You know I don't agree, but for the sake of argument let's continue down that path...

If a service is installed that only connects to a PV system, per 230.2(A)(5), you are saying that it's not a service?
If it is not, do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.2(A)(5) can't both be correct?
Does such a 'service' have any service equipment?
If not, is the equipment that connects the 'service' to the premise required to meet any requirements in article 230?
If not, does that strike you as safe?

If a new set of service entrance conductors are installed that connect only to a PV system, per 230.40 Exception 5, are you saying they are not service entrance conductors?
If it is not, do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.40 Exception 5 can't both be correct?
Do these conductors have to meet any article 230 requirements for service entrance conductors?
If not, does that strike you as safe?
You're blending issues with inappropriate terms. If all you have on a premises is a utility-interactive PV System, there is no Service... and Article 230 does not apply. For example, from 705.2 Definitions:
Utility-Interactive Inverter Output Circuit. The conductors
between the utility interactive inverter and the service
equipment or another electric power production source,
such as a utility, for electrical production and distribution
network.
Now if you have service equipment, wouldn't the electric power production source be a utility? So why the 'or' part of this definition..?
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Now if you have service equipment, wouldn't the electric power production source be a utility? So why the 'or' part of this definition..?

That potential contradiction is indeed resolved by the idea that if there are no (non-trivial) local loads the connection to the utility will not be through service equipment, since there is no service. That makes the "or" functionally necessary.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
That potential contradiction is indeed resolved by the idea that if there are no (non-trivial) local loads the connection to the utility will not be through service equipment, since there is no service. That makes the "or" functionally necessary.
:thumbsup:
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
You left the most interesting of my questions unanswered...

...
If it is not [a service], do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.2(A)(5) can't both be correct?
...
If [230 does not apply], does that strike you as safe?

...
If [they are] not [service entrance conductors], do you agree that the Article 100 definition and the wording of 230.40 Exception 5 can't both be correct?
...
If [article 230 does not apply], does that strike you as safe?
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Now if you have service equipment, wouldn't the electric power production source be a utility? So why the 'or' part of this definition..?

It doesn't have to be a utility. It could be any generator.
Also that definition doesn't have proper grammer, so it's pretty hard to tell what it means at all.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
It doesn't have to be a utility. It could be any generator.
Also that definition doesn't have proper grammer, so it's pretty hard to tell what it means at all.
It doesn't have to be a utility... but the point is it can be, which deduces to the disconnect not being a Service Disconnecting Means. Citing improper grammar to maintain your position is quite weak IMO.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
It doesn't have to be a utility... but the point is it can be, which deduces to the disconnect not being a Service Disconnecting Means. Citing improper grammar to maintain your position is quite weak IMO.

I want to know your opinion on whether 230.2(A)(5) and 230.40Exception 5 contain valid uses of code terms defined in Article 100.

Throwing out red-herrings and pretending to respond while not actually answering questions is much weaker than citing bad grammer,IMO.

Oh, and I also wanted to know if you think it's safe for the NEC to allow conductors connected directly to utility power that fall outside of, apparently according to you, any requirements whatsoever.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I want to know your opinion on whether 230.2(A)(5) and 230.40Exception 5 contain valid uses of code terms defined in Article 100.
They are valid within the bounds and context of the sections within which they are used.

Throwing out red-herrings and pretending to respond while not actually answering questions is much weaker than citing bad grammer,IMO.
You can call it a red herring if you want but its intent is not to be misleading, only distracting at best because it is no less pertinent to issue than any point you are attempting to make. You want your questions answered because you want others to align to your self-conceived program of interpretations. I am open to any pertinent concept you care to indulge, but I will not blindly proceed into the entrapment you believe you are setting up. I know where it ends...

Oh, and I also wanted to know if you think it's safe for the NEC to allow conductors connected directly to utility power that fall outside of, apparently according to you, any requirements whatsoever.
No one, especially myself, is saying no requirements are involved. The utility side of the disconnect under discussion is clearly a service. All I've been saying is that does not automatically make the disconnect a Service Disconnecting Means.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
They are valid within the bounds and context of the sections within which they are used.

I don't see how, unless the definition of a service, taken completely literally, is not applicable to Article 230. You've provided an assertion but not an argument.

... You want your questions answered because you want others to align to your self-conceived program of interpretations. I am open to any pertinent concept you care to indulge, but I will not blindly proceed into the entrapment you believe you are setting up. I know where it ends...

If your position is consistent and logical then there should be no trap. When you say "I know where it ends" I take that as an admission on your part that the language of the Code does not consistently support your position.

No one, especially myself, is saying no requirements are involved. The utility side of the disconnect under discussion is clearly a service. All I've been saying is that does not automatically make the disconnect a Service Disconnecting Means.

First you say it's service equipment even though it's not a service disconnecting means (posts 26, 31, 33, 40) then you agree it's either both or neither, but say it's neither because it's not a service (post 65), and now you say it's 'clearly a service.' I wish I knew where this ends...:roll:
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I don't see how, unless the definition of a service, taken completely literally, is not applicable to Article 230. You've provided an assertion but not an argument.
I've been trying to help you see how. You are quite reluctant no matter what I poise for your consideration. As it see it at this point, it's not my problem.

If your position is consistent and logical then there should be no trap. When you say "I know where it ends" I take that as an admission on your part that the language of the Code does not consistently support your position.
There isn't a trap... but I believe you are trying to set one.. and I'm simply telling you it's not going to happen... so quit wasting our time. You can take it however you want.


First you say it's service equipment even though it's not a service disconnecting means (posts 26, 31, 33, 40) then you agree it's either both or neither, but say it's neither because it's not a service (post 65), and now you say it's 'clearly a service.' I wish I knew where this ends...:roll:
I admit I made an error stating the disconnect was service equipment. I clearly see it is not now... and I thank you for helping me with that discovery.

Here's some clear and simple logic for you to mull over...

230.82 lists equipment permitted to be connected to the supply side of Service Disconnect, among which is "PV System". Note it uses the term Service Disconnect and not Service Disconnecting Means. Are they synonymous? I say most believe that is the intent.

So if as you say, the PV System disconnect is a Service Disconnecting Means, you could never connect a PV System to the supply side of Service Disconnect... and that in turn says 705.12(A) will never apply either.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Here is some equally simple logic for you:

If the conductors for a supply-side-connected PV system are not service entrance conductors, then why does 230.40 Exception 5 mention 230.82(6)?
Also, why does it refer to the 'normal service disconnecting means'? Is there such a thing as non-normal service disconnecting means?

Similarly, why does 230.2(A)(5) exist?
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Here is some equally simple logic for you:

If the conductors for a supply-side-connected PV system are not service entrance conductors, then why does 230.40 Exception 5 mention 230.82(6)?
The supply side conductors are Service Entrance Conductors. No surprise and competely logical from my perspective. I see no contradiction of terms here. Is therea section which requires a Service Disconnecting Means at the end of Service Entrance Conductors?

Also, why does it refer to the 'normal service disconnecting means'? Is there such a thing as non-normal service disconnecting means?
In a way, it's an admission the technical correlating committee has been asleep on this matter. Has anyone proposed the item of discussion be called something which distinguishes it from a 'normal' Service Disconnecting Means?

Similarly, why does 230.2(A)(5) exist?
It's referring to additional services (i.e. having two or more services of the same voltage and configuration). As to the reason(s), I'm not really certain.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
The supply side conductors are Service Entrance Conductors. No surprise and competely logical from my perspective. I see no contradiction of terms here. Is therea section which requires a Service Disconnecting Means at the end of Service Entrance Conductors?

Article 100 defines service entrance conductors as terminating at service equipment.

In a way, it's an admission the technical correlating committee has been asleep on this matter. Has anyone proposed the item of discussion be called something which distinguishes it from a 'normal' Service Disconnecting Means?

Glad you seem to be finally coming around to agreeing with me that the code does not consistently apply its own as-defined terms. That's been my position in this whole thread. (See post #39).

We can disagree about the best way to fix the inconsistencies, but I hope we can agree that the inconsistencies exist.

It's referring to additional services (i.e. having two or more services of the same voltage and configuration). As to the reason(s), I'm not really certain.

If a parallel power production source exports energy instead of importing it, then why is it mentioned in a section on services? Again, the point is that the code is not applying its own term in its own as-defined manner. Either that section or the definition of the term should be changed so they are logically consistent. I propose changing the definition.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Article 100 defines service entrance conductors as terminating at service equipment.
And that is the reason I was earlier saying the Service - PV System Disconnect was Service Equipment.

Glad you seem to be finally coming around to agreeing with me that the code does not consistently apply its own as-defined terms. That's been my position in this whole thread. (See post #39).
I never reay disagreed with you in this respect... but I had to suppress expressing any such sentiment to get you to where you now are.


We can disagree about the best way to fix the inconsistencies, but I hope we can agree that the inconsistencies exist.
That's right. :D


If a parallel power production source exports energy instead of importing it, then why is it mentioned in a section on services? Again, the point is that the code is not applying its own term in its own as-defined manner. Either that section or the definition of the term should be changed so they are logically consistent. I propose changing the definition.
The biggest issue is that the NEC has no term for non-service utility to private conductors. Another issue that many forget in this respect is the NEC attempts to align its terms in this area with that of the NESC, which is what POCO's go by for the most part
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top