That is not what I am saying. What I am trying to say is, how did it even get to this point? Why is the AHJ dictating design details of the system? Of course maybe it's a moot point for this particular case as the "cat is out of the bag" , but if I were to submit plans, I would just not put a neutral on the plans.
In my experience, AHJs have many times dictated design details for PV systems. Comply, fight, or fail the inspection were my choices in such situations; most often I complied.
If an inverter CAN operate without a neutral, and I wanted to install it that way, the plans would not show a neutral. I would not even give them an option.
Good for you if you could get away with it, but if the AHJ has a documented policy of requiring neutrals for inverters, your design would get rejected at plan review or you'd fail the inspection if the project were to get that far.
I suppose, but that seems ridiculous. Some inverters can't take a neutral no ifs and or buts about it. How would I terminate a neutral with no place for it to go?
The only cases I can think of where an inverter cannot take a neutral is a single phase inverter connected between the high leg and a 120V to G leg of a 240V delta high leg service, or a three phase inverter connected to an ungrounded delta service, but the issue is a larger one. AHJs I deal with can and frequently do dictate PV design details.
so if you submitted drawings showing three lines and an EGC to an inverter (or two and an EGC if single phase) you have AHJ's that would tell you to do it a different way? I just have a hard time imagining that happening. Are they going through inverter manuals and finding if it is an option to use a neutral and making you do it?
No, not that, specifically, but plenty of times I have had AHJs tell me to do things to satisfy their requirements which were not related to NEC rules, or, more often, NOT to do things that the NEC would have allowed.
@electrofelon, be aware that ggunn deals with a number of municipal utilities, and as such uses the term AHJ to refer to both POCOs and building departments.
I use the term as it is defined in Article 100 of the NEC. I suppose I could consider my wife to be an AHJ.
Since a non-municipal POCO has the ability to set a standard for getting power hooked up, I guess you can say that the POCO is "responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard."
We have been around this tree before, have we not? You don't really expect me to change, do you?
No, which is why my first post today was just an alert to electrofelon about your usage of the term, not an attempt to get you to change. But adopting the common usage would make your communications clearer.We have been around this tree before, have we not? You don't really expect me to change, do you?
Unless the jurisdiction has a legally adopted amendment that says they will inspect to the plans and specifications, in addition to the NEC, they have no legal right to inspect to the plans. They can only inspect to the legally adopted requirements in the NEC.
At the end of the day it really doesn't make much difference whether a rule being imposed by an AHJ is codified by a governing body or not. If the only choices are to do what they want you to do or to take it to court, most of us in most cases will just do it.
