Apparently I have. I wanted to also say that 230.40 Exception #3 works nicely as a way to feed ground mounts. Basically the same sketch except the service disconnects are not grouped as allowed in ex #3.
What's the upside to having the conductors to the ground mount be service conductors rather than a feeder? Obviously Exception #3 is only for residential services.
only three wires required, and no additional disconnects or equipment required at the meter end. Also its generally easier to come off the meter which is already outside, over coming into the existing panel which is usually inside around here. Then also often the ground mounts I do are long wire runs so we have big conductors which are a pain to land in typical loadcenter.
I can see that the utility would want to disallow IPCs in a meter can that has just a single set of load side lugs.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why you are arguing with me about this. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how I am "seeing this". To connect PV to a customer's service we have to get their utility's permission, and every utility has policies regarding PV systems with which we have to comply. You can tell them that what you are proposing is a system that complies with Exception So-and-so of Article Whatever, and they will tell you that you are just trying to do an end run around their policy and you cannot do it.
The issue is that when the utility shows up to break their seal they will ask you what you plan to do, and when you tell them they will tell you that you can't.
CPS (San Antonio) will not allow IPC's in a customer's MDP, but AE (Austin) will. Neither will allow a PV connection of any kind in a utility revenue meter can.
I don't think that it's intention of electrofelon or me to argue with you. When you say "POCO X doesn't allow line side connections" we are just saying "that doesn't seem like it could be a self-consistent policy, so what are the details of the POCO policy?"
Wow, you are right, so simple. I wonder why everyone else in the PV industry is too dumb to do this all the time?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Most utilities and AHJs will see what is really being done here, a PV supply side interconnection dolled up as an additional service entrance, and reject it if they don't allow supply side interconnections or require it to comply with PV interconnection requirements in the NEC if they do. If this is working for you then you are working with some nice utilities and building departments, and that's great. But don't expect this to be accepted in many jurisdictions.
Yes, NEC-wise it is so simple, and I was responding to your NEC comments. Obviously POCOs may have other rules.
As I said, it's not me but the utilities who have "special" rules for PV. Keeping track of which rules are in place in the territories of which utilities drives us crazy; we maintain a multi page spreadsheet which is always being updated. Many utilities have different policies for residential and commercial PV systems as well.Wow, you are right, so simple. I wonder why everyone else in the PV industry is too dumb to do this all the time?
I am surprised at the resistance I am getting to this. We make system modifications and rearrangements all the time for load side connections: swapping a panel for a higher rated busbar, reorganizing breakers, changing a main breaker....This is just another thing to make a load side connection work per the NEC rules. I am honestly at a loss why you think this is some sort or invalid hocus pocus. As a long time electrician, I use the 230.40 and 230.71-71 rules all the time, pretty much on every commercial service, new or upgrade. I havnt add a bit of trouble from the utilities or the agency that runs the state rebate program.. Maybe you should give it a try next time you have an applicable situation.
Lucky you.
Are you saying that their design manual has rules 1-10 listed, and an example figure that complies with rules 1-10, but also happens to have features 11-15 never mentioned in the text, and the POCO treats features 11-15 as mandatory? If so, that's clearly wrong-headed.
