You are begging the question. The point is that the 'General' section of 230.70 strongly implies that a PV system disconnect that is connected directly to service entrance conductors is a 'service disconnecting means' because it doubles as all or the part of the 'means...provided to disconnect all conductors ... from the service entrance conductors.'Please describe how the title to Part VI relates to 230.70. Additionally, what word precedes each instance of disconnect, or derivations thereof, in every subsection of 230.70?
230.70 is one of several sections of 230 I could have mentioned which are written as if it is a fact that the disconnect and conductors for a supply-side-connected PV system are a 'service disconnect' and 'service conductors'. There's also 230.2(A)(2), 230.40 Exception 5, and 230.71(A) (already mentioned). True, thereare other sections (the definition of a 'service', and the various "supply side of the service disconnecting means' sections) that can be read to mean the opposite. This simply means we have conflicting and inconsistent language in the code. This should not come as shock, since knowledgeable people have been disagreeing on this particular subject for a while now.
For me, what settles the question is none of these particular sections, but rather 90.1(A). Service-entrance-conductors which are connected to a PV system present exactly the same safety hazards as any other service entrance conductors. Therefore, generally speaking, they should treated as such and subject to all the same rules.
Again, I think you're begging the question (or I am not understanding your contention). The question is whether there are any location requirements with respect to the inside and outside of buildings for AC PV system disconnects. My contention is that there are not, unless they happen to also be service disconnects which fall under 230.70. You are contending that there are requirements, and they are covered by 690.14, which is an opinion which I disagree with, but which you've made some reasonable comments in support of. You also seem to be contending (am I wrong?) that there ought to be location requirements with respect to the inside and outside of buildings for AC PV system disconnects. That's a separate opinion, also one I disagree with, but one which I don't believe you've offered any supporting argument for in this thread.Man, you're really pushing the envelop to make your point :happyyes:. Installing the disconnect in a readily accessible location has very little to do with the disconnect being located outside the building or inside adjacent the conductor entry point....
Of course not. There are several sections of 690 that have specific requirements for inverter output circuits. However I will add that none of them, to my knowledge, describe these circuits as 'photovoltaic' or part of a 'photovoltaic system'.So an Inverter Output Circuit is excluded from Article 690 requirements? Refer to definitions of 690.2.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion.Believe as you may... but as long as you continue this path, I will disagree. :jawdrop:
It was simply an expression of my hope that 690.14 has made things clearer in the 2014 NEC.I'm really at a loss in understanding this comment, much less offer a response... :?
I also like the rules that I have to work by to be clear, logical, and to have a legitimate reason for existing. (Again, see 90.1(A).) Often naive, to be sure, when dealing with the NEC, but still worth shooting for.The only thing I can surmise is that you like to debate the issues....