An outdoor interconnected electrical power production source (NEC 705) is proposed to be installed at one property (1st property) and interconnect to that property's electrical service via line side tap at service entrance MCB within the building's electrical room. Additionally at same proposed location, another outdoor interconnected electrical power production source is proposed to have it's feeder route up the wall and across the roof of the 1st property's building in rigid metal conduit, then back down the wall on the other side and transition to underground across the street to interconnect to a separate electrical service via line side tap at service entrance MCB at 2nd property/building. Both properties are under single management.
The outdoor interconnected power production sources are not considered a separately derived service and are always classified as a feeder, not a secondary. The alternate power production source utilizes IEEE1547 compliant utility interactive inverters, i.e. if the service is down, the inverters are down. From a fire safety standpoint, if the fire department opens the MCB at either service, since the inverters are line side tapped at the MCB, they still would sense voltage from the grid if it was still energized, remain online and back-feed into the grid - push button shunt trips however could be provided at each existing service disconnect location. Both production sources have local disconnects and emergency shutoff as well.
As it relates to the above statements, 225.30 or 230.2 could be appropriate here, and both have special conditions that allow parallel power production systems. Both feeders will will have fused disconnects at each end of the run at the feeder entrance into the buildings and the line side tap from the disconnect to the existing electrical system is 25' max and compliant with tap rules.
Initial thoughts on the above being NEC code compliant? Specifically parallel production source originating at one property and supplying grid parallel power to a separate service/property...
Any feedback is appreciated. Ultimately, we will also likely be reaching out the the AHJ for their take prior to getting too far into the design.
The outdoor interconnected power production sources are not considered a separately derived service and are always classified as a feeder, not a secondary. The alternate power production source utilizes IEEE1547 compliant utility interactive inverters, i.e. if the service is down, the inverters are down. From a fire safety standpoint, if the fire department opens the MCB at either service, since the inverters are line side tapped at the MCB, they still would sense voltage from the grid if it was still energized, remain online and back-feed into the grid - push button shunt trips however could be provided at each existing service disconnect location. Both production sources have local disconnects and emergency shutoff as well.
As it relates to the above statements, 225.30 or 230.2 could be appropriate here, and both have special conditions that allow parallel power production systems. Both feeders will will have fused disconnects at each end of the run at the feeder entrance into the buildings and the line side tap from the disconnect to the existing electrical system is 25' max and compliant with tap rules.
Initial thoughts on the above being NEC code compliant? Specifically parallel production source originating at one property and supplying grid parallel power to a separate service/property...
Any feedback is appreciated. Ultimately, we will also likely be reaching out the the AHJ for their take prior to getting too far into the design.