Kern County and 705.12(D)

[jaggedben]

Okay so I totally agree that you should be allowed to do what you want. But I would have taken a different emphasis on the code argument. As Wayne said, this is covered by 705.12(D)(2)(1). And -(2). I would argue that 705.12(D)(2)(3) does not apply because that section is about 'busbars in panelboards.' The location of connection you have described is not a panelboard.

Important to note to the AHJ that in the 2016 CEC (2014 NEC), the 120% rule no longer applies broadly to any 'busbar or conductor'. The language that used to be found in 705.12(D)(2) of the previous code no longer exists. The 120% rule now only applies to 'busbars in panelboards.' In fact, you have described that there aren't even any 'busbars' of any kind, which is the title of that subsection. Thus the 120% rule does not apply, and your disagreement about multiple feeders is moot.

 

[jaggedben]

Just to add, you have no problem complying with 705.12(D)(2)(1) from your description. 705.12(D)(2)(2) might be a bit of a bugaboo with this AHJ, but is probably surmountable. There's no good reason to try to get out of -D(1), -D(3), or -D(4). D(5) and -D(6) I'm sure have no relevance to your installation. So I think you are overplaying your hand trying to argue that the entirety of -D(1) through D(6) should not apply.

 

[anndee4444]

Okay so I totally agree that you should be allowed to do what you want. But I would have taken a different emphasis on the code argument. As Wayne said, this is covered by 705.12(D)(2)(1). And -(2). I would argue that 705.12(D)(2)(3) does not apply because that section is about 'busbars in panelboards.' The location of connection you have described is not a panelboard.

Important to note to the AHJ that in the 2016 CEC (2014 NEC), the 120% rule no longer applies broadly to any 'busbar or conductor'. The language that used to be found in 705.12(D)(2) of the previous code no longer exists. The 120% rule now only applies to 'busbars in panelboards.' In fact, you have described that there aren't even any 'busbars' of any kind, which is the title of that subsection. Thus the 120% rule does not apply, and your disagreement about multiple feeders is moot.

NICE! I get it now. Thank you for this, this forum is awesome.

 

[wwhitney]

Yes, but that is a characteristic of the application, not of the piece of gear itself.

My point is that if the gear is "being fed simultaneously by a primary source of electricity [one breaker] and one or more utility interactive inverters [at minimum, a second breaker] . . . and supplying multiple branch circuits or feeders [at minimum, two more breakers]" then the gear has at least 4 breakers (excluding the possibility of MLO). So if the gear can only hold three breakers, then it does not fall under the last sentence of (2014) 705.12(D).

Of course, this point is now moot, since the OP is not making the inverter output connection at his gear.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

My point is that if the gear is "being fed simultaneously by a primary source of electricity [one breaker] and one or more utility interactive inverters [at minimum, a second breaker] . . . and supplying multiple branch circuits or feeders [at minimum, two more breakers]" then the gear has at least 4 breakers (excluding the possibility of MLO). So if the gear can only hold three breakers, then it does not fall under the last sentence of (2014) 705.12(D).

Of course, this point is now moot, since the OP is not making the inverter output connection at his gear.

Cheers, Wayne

What you're saying requires you to ignore the word 'capable'. Also, I'm finding it difficult to remember any load side equipment I've seen that is capable of supplying 3 circuits but not 4.

But as you say, the point is moot.

 

[wwhitney]

Also, I'm finding it difficult to remember any load side equipment I've seen that is capable of supplying 3 circuits but not 4.

My "3 breakers" count includes the main breaker, so the usual terminology would be a panel capable of supplying only 2 circuits. I have such a meter main on my house. One main breaker for the utility power, one breaker for the grid interactive inverter connection, and one breaker for the outgoing feeder. The panel is full, it is not capable of supplying multiple feeders.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

My "3 breakers" count includes the main breaker, so the usual terminology would be a panel capable of supplying only 2 circuits. I have such a meter main on my house. One main breaker for the utility power, one breaker for the grid interactive inverter connection, and one breaker for the outgoing feeder. The panel is full, it is not capable of supplying multiple feeders.

Cheers, Wayne

Again, that's the application making the equipment incapable, not the equipment itself. I don't think that 's what the NEC is saying.

 

[wwhitney]

Deleted. Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Again, that's the application making the equipment incapable, not the equipment itself. I don't think that 's what the NEC is saying.

To me it is very clear, so I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation. Here's the sentence again:

Where distribution equipment, including switchgear, switchboards, or panelboards, is fed simultaneously by a primary source(s) of electricity and one or more utility-interactive inverters, and where this distribution equipment is capable of supplying multiple branch circuits or feeders, or both, the interconnecting provisions for the utility-interactive inverter(s) shall comply with 705.12(D)(1) through (D)(6).

It has two condtions, the two "where" phrases. I am reading condition 2 as being in the context of condition 1 being met, i.e. saying that condition 2 implicitly includes the language "while being so simultaneously fed". Is your interpretation that condition 2 stands-alone, independent of condition 1? Is that the source of our disagreement?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

My "3 breakers" count includes the main breaker, so the usual terminology would be a panel capable of supplying only 2 circuits. I have such a meter main on my house. One main breaker for the utility power, one breaker for the grid interactive inverter connection, and one breaker for the outgoing feeder. The panel is full, it is not capable of supplying multiple feeders.

Not that I don't believe you, but that's an unusual meter main for the Bay Area. I'd be curious to confirm if either or both of the load side breaker slots can't be quadded up with another feeder.

To the point, your panel is capable of supplying two feeders or two branch circuits, or one of each, even if that's not how it's being used. I certainly wouldn't expect an AHJ to not regard that part of the language as a requirement that stands on its own. Also some people might say that the inverter connection is a branch circuit so it is being used that way, but that's more of an interpretation of the appliance branch circuit definition.

 

[wwhitney]

Not that I don't believe you, but that's an unusual meter main for the Bay Area. I'd be curious to confirm if either or both of the load side breaker slots can't be quadded up with another feeder.

OK, I checked, and my meter main will accept two quads in the distribution section, sorry I overlooked that possibility. So I now agree that it meets the second condition of the last sentence of 705.12(D) and is thus subject to subitems 1 through 6. Perhaps the hypothetical equipment that can only supply one feeder while being fed by two sources doesn't exist on the market.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

To me it is very clear, so I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation. Here's the sentence again:



It has two condtions, the two "where" phrases. I am reading condition 2 as being in the context of condition 1 being met, i.e. saying that condition 2 implicitly includes the language "while being so simultaneously fed". Is your interpretation that condition 2 stands-alone, independent of condition 1? Is that the source of our disagreement?

Cheers, Wayne

I'm not sure. Any grid tied inverter is connected to the grid in such a way that every piece of gear between the inverter and the service fits the first statement, therefore the second has to be considered in each one of them. The second is where the "capable" language is, and I don't think the way a piece of equipment (a panel, for example) is wired or filled can affect what it is intrinsically capable of.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm not sure. Any grid tied inverter is connected to the grid in such a way that every piece of gear between the inverter and the service fits the first statement, therefore the second has to be considered in each one of them.

Agreed. I guess my question is why was the second condition written into 705.12(D)? What's an example of equipment (with OCPDs) that can be installed to meet the first clause, but doesn't meet the second clause, because it is only "capable of supplying" one feeder or branch circuit?

Thanks, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

Agreed. I guess my question is why was the second condition written into 705.12(D)? What's an example of equipment (with OCPDs) that can be installed to meet the first clause, but doesn't meet the second clause, because it is only "capable of supplying" one feeder or branch circuit?

Thanks, Wayne

An enclosed breaker, maybe?