230 does cover service conductors, but because the PV System Disconnect is not a Service Disconnect, its location(s) is(are) not covered by Article 230, Part VI.
The language of 230.70 clearly contradicts this statement. It refers specifically to disconnecting service entrance conductors in the "General" portion. If the location requirements that follow do not apply specifically to the aforementioned disconnecting means then much of the NEC can be reduced to meaningless nonsense. This is true
even if we might think that the supply-side PV system disconnect is not subject to all the other rules for service disconnecting means (i.e 270.71 thru 270.81.)
(Meanwhile it's really hard to argue that 270.71, specifically, does not apply to PV system disconnects, given the following sentence:
"The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or
for each set of service entrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No.1,
3, 4, or
5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets
of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six
switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard.")
That means its location(s) have to be covered by 690 or 705... and 705 does not cover its location.
Not true. 705.22 requires that it be "Located where readily accessible." 705.70 covers inverters in not-readily accessible locations (and, notable to this discussion, makes 690.14(D) redundant).
And that is the extent of the location requirements specific to the AC disconnects for interconnected power production sources in the NEC.
Which I think is good.
Article 690 covers photovoltaic systems... which includes both DC and AC portions of said system.
Nowhere in 690 does it define AC conductors as part of a PV system. The only 'AC portion' of a PV system is an inverter. See also the definition of "Electrical Production and Distribution Network", which strongly implies mutual exclusivity between the PV system and the AC distribution network.
Sorry to disagree, but isolated usage of the term photovoltaic does not limit any requirement's coverage to just the DC portion.[etc. etc.]
As Zee pointed, 690.14 is mightily unclear on which disconnects it does and does not apply to, because it uses undefined terms. I think my interpretation that "photovoltaic" applies to "photovoltaic" source and output conductors is at least as reasonable as any interpretation that they apply to conductors that do not carry photovoltaic voltages and currents. Moreover, the fact that "photovoltaic systems" are
not defined as including AC distribution generally leads me to believe that neither the terms "photovoltaic" or "photovoltaic systems" should be generally construed as applying to any purely AC equipment or conductors. So, except when 690 explicitly uses the acronym 'ac' , or other language that reasonably includes ac (such as 'all sources'), I think it's not supportable to assume a general application of requirements to the AC side of things. Again, that stuff is mostly covered in 705 now, and for good reason.
Yes, this is an interpretation, but it's at least as reasonable as any opposing one. The code needs to be cleared up if we want to have less reliance on interpretations. I hope we can at least agree that the reason we are having this argument is that 690.14 uses vague and undefined terms.
FWIW, I just had a quick look at 2014's 690.13 and 690.14. I'm not yet sure whether it provides any true improvement... :blink:
Well, I hope I don't agree when I get around to that.
