2017 "Service Disconnects" Grouping and additional PV System Disconnect

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

suicidelg

Member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
Lead Electrician
Hello,

I have a question in regards to groupings of disconnects per 230.71(A) of the 2017 version. My current situation is this:

Existing building has 6 Service Disconnects "Grouped" that are tapped off of parallel sets of Underground service conductors in a junction box located below said grouped disconnects. I'm adding an additional PV System Disconnect as allowed in 230.40(Except. 5). The issue that I'm having is in regards to 230.71(A).

The verbiage states "There shall be not more than six SETS of disconnects per service grouped in any one location". It does not, however, say "There shall be not more than six disconnects per service grouped in any one location"

As far as I'm aware this PV System Disconnect would be part of its own SET of disconnects and therefore can be located near the original 6 grouped disconnects. Am I wrong? I'm having trouble finding an answer online as most responses don't deal with the additional number of SEC sets allowed. Also, most responses that I've found leave out the understanding that the verbiage of the NEC says SET of disconnects and not just disconnects. Additionally, SET is defined in the dictionary as "a number, group, or combination of things of similar nature, design, or function".
 
You are correct.
Note that in 230.71(A) the allowance for six disconnects for 'each set' of SECs refers explicitly to 230.40 Exception 5, which in turn refers explicitly to 230.82(6), which applies to solar PV systems among other things.

The only caveat I feel bound to add is that I've never run through this argument with an AHJ.

There's also the possibility of arguing that the PV disconnect(s) isn't a service disconnect(s) at all, although I feel the above is more reasonable and involves at lot less reading between the lines.
 
jaggedben said:
You are correct.
Note that in 230.71(A) the allowance for six disconnects for 'each set' of SECs refers explicitly to 230.40 Exception 5, which in turn refers explicitly to 230.82(6), which applies to solar PV systems among other things.

The only caveat I feel bound to add is that I've never run through this argument with an AHJ.

There's also the possibility of arguing that the PV disconnect(s) isn't a service disconnect(s) at all, although I feel the above is more reasonable and involves at lot less reading between the lines.
Click to expand...
Yes! The verbiage seems clear to me but it often seems like even though that's the case you can still run into trouble. I'll run this by the State Inspectors so I don't have to argue with smaller individual AHJ's as I have way to many AHJ's I deal with across the State.

You're right. PV System Disconnects are, by definition, not services. I didn't bring this up as an argument because 230.71(A) doesn't say "service" in the last sentence even though the first sentence refers to service disconnects in regards to 230.2 and 230.40 exceptions. So it's not clear to me explicitely that the last sentence refers to services even though the spirit of the paragraph does.
 
A PV AC disconnect on the supply side of the service disconnect(s) does not count as an additional handle toward the six handle rule because they are not from the same service as the utility disco(s), but many AHJs will fight you on it.
 
I see this was moved but I feel like its more appropriate in the NEC section as its a code interpretation question and not PV specific.
 
ggunn said:
A PV AC disconnect on the supply side of the service disconnect(s) does not count as an additional handle toward the six handle rule because they are not from the same service as the utility disco(s), but many AHJs will fight you on it.
Click to expand...
They are still from the same service, unless there is more than one service point.

BTW the 2020 code changed the definition of a service so that the 'PV is not a service by definition' argument holds less water.
 
jaggedben said:
They are still from the same service, unless there is more than one service point.

BTW the 2020 code changed the definition of a service so that the 'PV is not a service by definition' argument holds less water.
Click to expand...
Our host was of the opinion that PV doesn't count as an additional handle; I wonder if the code revisions have changed that.
 
jaggedben said:
They are still from the same service, unless there is more than one service point.

BTW the 2020 code changed the definition of a service so that the 'PV is not a service by definition' argument holds less water.
Click to expand...
It looks like the definition for service between 2017 and 2020 is the same wording but they changed "delivering" to "connecting". So I don't really see how that has changed anything for PV being a service or not?
ggunn said:
Our host was of the opinion that PV doesn't count as an additional handle; I wonder if the code revisions have changed that.
Click to expand...
What I was referring to is 230.40(Exception 5) allowing us to have an addition SEC which comes with an additional set of 1-6 Disconnects. Then look 230.71(A) saying that we can't have more than six SETS of disconnects per service grouped together.
 
suicidelg said:
It looks like the definition for service between 2017 and 2020 is the same wording but they changed "delivering" to "connecting". So I don't really see how that has changed anything for PV being a service or not?
Click to expand...
They didn't just replace 'delivering', they replaced 'delivering electrical energy from' the utility. Prior to the change, some people would argue that supply side PV connections did not contain service conductors or service disconnects because the purpose of such items was not to deliver energy from the utility. That 'by definition' argument no longer holds.

I never cared for that argument because it makes no sense saftey wise. But in my opinion the code sections in 230 which we discussed above have always allowed a 7th handle for PV if installed on a separate set of SECs. In fact they allow 7th thru 12th handles.
 
jaggedben said:
They didn't just replace 'delivering', they replaced 'delivering electrical energy from' the utility. Prior to the change, some people would argue that supply side PV connections did not contain service conductors or service disconnects because the purpose of such items was not to deliver energy from the utility. That 'by definition' argument no longer holds.

I never cared for that argument because it makes no sense saftey wise. But in my opinion the code sections in 230 which we discussed above have always allowed a 7th handle for PV if installed on a separate set of SECs. In fact they allow 7th thru 12th handles.
Click to expand...
You'll be interested to know that the State Inspector "Ruled" that 230.71(A) does in fact only mean 6 total service disconnects grouped together (I still don't understand this as it clearly says sets, they should just remove the word set then) in anyone area. However, they said that because a PV System Disconnect is not a Service Disconnect it can be placed next to the group of 6 without violating 230.71(A)....lol funny twist.
 
suicidelg said:
You'll be interested to know that the State Inspector "Ruled" that 230.71(A) does in fact only mean 6 total service disconnects grouped together (I still don't understand this as it clearly says sets, they should just remove the word set then) in anyone area. However, they said that because a PV System Disconnect is not a Service Disconnect it can be placed next to the group of 6 without violating 230.71(A)....lol funny twist.
Click to expand...
They'd have to delete a lot more than the word set. He's ignoring the references to 230.40 exceptions. It's notable which exceptions they do and don't list in 230.71.

Anyway inspectors ignoring the NEC seems par for the course to me, I've been around that block a few times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top