I'll agree with that much.... The wording is basically all there, just needs a few tweaks.
I'll agree with that much.... The wording is basically all there, just needs a few tweaks.
Around here it depends on whether you are in Austin or San Antonio.I feel like 705.12(A) is the place where all the specifics of this issue should be answered. Such as, is or isn't it a "service disconnect", and should or should not ground and neutral be bonded at it?
I disagree. It is neither plain nor simple.they are service entrance conductors plain and simple.
A service disconnecting means implies the utility is supplying power to utilization equipment on the load side of the disconnect. A PV system does not qualify as utilization equipment, and if there is a load side to the disconnect, it is the utility side. So a PV System Disconnect cannot be a Service Disconnecting Means.
I agree with Carultch. The NEC should explicitly and unambiguously address this issue in 705.
I disagree. It is neither plain nor simple.
I agree with Carultch. The NEC should explicitly and unambiguously address this issue in 705.
I disagree with the idea that the issue is plain and simple. I routinely deal with two major municipally owned utilities who are notoriously picky about this and other things, and their respective engineering departments have come to opposite conclusions.How can you disagree, it says right in 230.40 exception 5 they are service entrance conductors. Now whether those terminate at a service disconnect, that could be argued....