I have a canopy array installed in a parking area (Canopy 1). The inverters and AC and DC disconnects are located at that point. Output of inverters combine in a subpanel(PV Panel 2{MLO}). I then have an approximately 1200 ft run back to another inverter pad where two inverter outputs plus the PV Panel 2 output combine in PV Panel 1 . The feeders from PV Panel 2 run underground for 800 ft then enter and pass thru the building then re-emerge to to terminate in PV panel 1 (MLO). From PV panel 1 to an AC disconnect, then the feeders re-enter the building to point of interconnection and are terminated on a line side tap. Question. Where feeders from PV panel 2 enter building and pass thru is an AC disconnect required as per 225.31? The original plan shows all feeders remaing outside the building, but due to field conditions utility power, gas and water mains in the way this is the resulting fix, the engineer does not specify a disconnect at this point, but I'm not convinced that I don't need one.This will obviously be a change order and I would like to do this prior to wires being pulled. Any help is greatly appreciated.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Disconnect requirements
- Thread starter wyrepullr
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
SolarPro
Senior Member
- Location
- Austin, TX
The disconnect on the output of PV Panel 1 is the disconnecting means for all of the inverters and the ac collection system that makes up the interconnected electric power production source. If you want to open the ungrounded conductors associated with the PV system that pass through the building or structure, then you open that disconnect. I can't think of any reason that Code would require another disconnect.
Sometimes exceeding Code minimum requirements can improve serviceability, which is a noble design driver. However, I don't see how that applies in this situation. For O&M purposes you might want PV Panel 2 unenergized while PV Panel 1 is still energized, in which case you would open the CB feeding PV Panel 2 in PV Panel 1.
I suspect the real challenge here in terms of Code-compliance will relate to identification and grouping [690.4(B)(2) and (3)], circuit routing [690.4.(F)], directories [690.4(H)] and labels [multiple requirements in 690 and 705].
[Just because the Code doesn't require an extra disconnect, doesn't mean that the AHJ won't think they need/want one. You might want to get a revised set of drawings from the PE and talk this through with the inspector just to make sure everyone is on the same page.]
Sometimes exceeding Code minimum requirements can improve serviceability, which is a noble design driver. However, I don't see how that applies in this situation. For O&M purposes you might want PV Panel 2 unenergized while PV Panel 1 is still energized, in which case you would open the CB feeding PV Panel 2 in PV Panel 1.
I suspect the real challenge here in terms of Code-compliance will relate to identification and grouping [690.4(B)(2) and (3)], circuit routing [690.4.(F)], directories [690.4(H)] and labels [multiple requirements in 690 and 705].
[Just because the Code doesn't require an extra disconnect, doesn't mean that the AHJ won't think they need/want one. You might want to get a revised set of drawings from the PE and talk this through with the inspector just to make sure everyone is on the same page.]
Last edited:
Thank You
That was one train of thought I was having. My concern was the lack of disconnects within visible sight and you hit the nail exactly,I fear that AHJ will require even though it may not be neccesary. After reading your response and discussing with some others a bit, it has cleared up my view of how this installation is being engineered.
That was one train of thought I was having. My concern was the lack of disconnects within visible sight and you hit the nail exactly,I fear that AHJ will require even though it may not be neccesary. After reading your response and discussing with some others a bit, it has cleared up my view of how this installation is being engineered.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.