Line Side Tap Neutral count as GEC to main panel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaggedben said:
There's no good reason not to change the definition of a service. I'll propose to simply change "to" and "from" to "between" and "and". There should be no practical consequences except to remove this silly notion that service conductors aren't service conductors if connected to a power source.
Click to expand...
You have plenty of time to work up a public input for the 2020 code. They are due the first Friday in November of 2017.
 
Sorry for being late to the discussion. I've been reading most of the posts as it progressed but too busy to post myself...
Digiacog said:
...So, which inspector is right?:? Is 1 wire Sufficient or do I need to run both the Neutral and a separate GEC? What are the benefits of each way?
Click to expand...
Neither.

First, there are no paralleling rules for GECs. To be in parallel with neutral, it has to be a neutral, and thus, white insulation or equivalent as permitted. Other requirements kick in as well.

The remainder of the issue centers around what has already been made obvious: Service Disconnecting Means or not. I side with 'not'. Still do. It is quite simply a Service-PV System disconnect.

As such, there is no need to bond the GES via a GEC or GEC tap to the grounded conductor (neutral). The GES is already bonded to the service neutral at another point or points, and the GEC(s) are sized based on the ungrounded conductors size(s). The service is sized to deliver the calculated load without the additional energy provided by the PV System, so it stands to reason the GES is already sufficient. However, the disconnect must have neutral-to-enclosure bond (albeit a jumper, which is not to be confused as a Main or System Bonding Jumper) to ground the enclosure and establish an EGC for the PV side.
 
Smart $ said:
As such, there is no need to bond the GES via a GEC or GEC tap to the grounded conductor (neutral). The GES is already bonded to the service neutral at another point or points, and the GEC(s) are sized based on the ungrounded conductors size(s). The service is sized to deliver the calculated load without the additional energy provided by the PV System, so it stands to reason the GES is already sufficient. However, the disconnect must have neutral-to-enclosure bond (albeit a jumper, which is not to be confused as a Main or System Bonding Jumper) to ground the enclosure and establish an EGC for the PV side.
Click to expand...

And what about the solar GEC? If it's a 690.47(C)(3) combined EGC/GEC, where does it need to terminate? Can it run through the same enclosure and raceways as the service conductors?
 
Smart $ said:
However, the disconnect must have neutral-to-enclosure bond (albeit a jumper, which is not to be confused as a Main or System Bonding Jumper) to ground the enclosure and establish an EGC for the PV side.
Click to expand...
Neutral to enclosure?
 
jaggedben said:
And what about the solar GEC? If it's a 690.47(C)(3) combined EGC/GEC, where does it need to terminate? Can it run through the same enclosure and raceways as the service conductors?
Click to expand...
It don't have to go anywhere beyond the disconnect...
...to the grounding busbar in the associated ac equipment. ...
Click to expand...


ggunn said:
Neutral to enclosure?
Click to expand...
Yep. You're not on the load side of a service disconnecting means, so you ground/bond to the service grounded conductor.
 
Smart $ said:
Yep. You're not on the load side of a service disconnecting means, so you ground/bond to the service grounded conductor.
Click to expand...

You said:
As such, there is no need to bond the GES via a GEC or GEC tap to the grounded conductor (neutral). The GES is already bonded to the service neutral at another point or points, and the GEC(s) are sized based on the ungrounded conductors size(s).

And then you said:
...the disconnect must have neutral-to-enclosure bond (albeit a jumper, which is not to be confused as a Main or System Bonding Jumper) to ground the enclosure and establish an EGC for the PV side.

This is confusing to me. It seems as though you are saying that you believe that the neutral should not be bonded to the EGC/GEC in the switch but the neutral instead of the grounding conductor should be tied to the enclosure of the switch. That makes no sense to me.

I know this is redundant on my part, but this discussion continues to make it apparent to me that the NEC should address this point directly rather than leaving it up to the interpretation of what is at best ambiguous and at worst contradictory articles in the Code.
 
ggunn said:
[What you said I said :p]

This is confusing to me. It seems as though you are saying that you believe that the neutral should not be bonded to the EGC/GEC in the switch but the neutral instead of the grounding conductor should be tied to the enclosure of the switch. That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
The GES is [typically] already bonded to the service neutral elsewhere [but a GEC can be terminated at any point on the service neutral].

All that is required [when GES is terminated elsewhere] is the non-current carrying metal parts be bonded to the neutral at the Service-PV System disconnect... and this in turn establishes the termination point for the PV System combo EGC/GEC.
 
Smart $ said:
It is not a Service Disconnecting Means under Code. Terminology is a key factor in this discussion.
Click to expand...

The distinction between Service Equipment and Service Disconnecting Means is clearly lost on the AHJs who are telling participants in this forum not to bond the neutral. That's why I think it will be clearer if we just change definition of a service so that there is no difference.
 
jaggedben said:
The distinction between Service Equipment and Service Disconnecting Means is clearly lost on the AHJs who are telling participants in this forum not to bond the neutral. That's why I think it will be clearer if we just change definition of a service so that there is no difference.
Click to expand...
If we change "definitions" to the point the disconnect is undoubtedly a Service Disconnecting Means, it would not only make it more apparent the neutral must be bonded to the enclosure and PV side grounding conductor, you'd also kick in the requirement to run a GEC to the disconnect.

The rules are already in place which require the neutral bond. What is needed is to 'educate' these inspectors... but I do agree we have to start somewhere, and until the experienced and knowledgeable agree, it will be hard to 'educate' anyone. :slaphead:
 
Smart $ said:
The GES is [typically] already bonded to the service neutral elsewhere [but a GEC can be terminated at any point on the service neutral].

All that is required [when GES is terminated elsewhere] is the non-current carrying metal parts be bonded to the neutral at the Service-PV System disconnect... and this in turn establishes the termination point for the PV System combo EGC/GEC.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if this has been covered already and I am not just trying to be argumentative, but can you direct me to language in the NEC which directs that the neutral shall be tied to the enclosure. I do not recall ever seeing this anywhere.
 
ggunn said:
I'm sorry if this has been covered already and I am not just trying to be argumentative, but can you direct me to language in the NEC which directs that the neutral shall be tied to the enclosure. I do not recall ever seeing this anywhere.
Click to expand...

250.24(C) and 250.92(A)(1)

The problem with Smart$ argument is that neither of these sections unambiguously applies to a supply side PV disconnect if such a disco is not already considered a 'Service Disconnecting means' or 'at the service' (respectively).

Again, if we simply change the definition of the service so that applies to any conductors and equipment connecting a utility to a premise, regardless of the direction of energy flow, then most of the ambiguity goes away.

The only remaining problem sections would be those that refer to the 'supply-side of the service disconnecting means' in a way that could be taken to imply, grammatically, that any such thing on the 'supply side' is not the service disconnecting means. This interpretation is contradicted by some other sections, such as 230.82(5) and 230.71(A), which imply that certain (not all?) of such connections are service disconnecting means or service equipment. Perhaps regular use of the word 'normal', as in 'supply side of the normal service disconnecting means' is all that is necessary to nix this interpretation. Currently the word 'normal' appears in only one such spot that I'm aware of (230.40 Exception 5), but at least that means there's a precedent for it.

In all, these proposals would substantially fix the problem, in my opinion, without adding more than one word to any section of the code.:D I think shortcircuit's proposal in this thread is also in the same spirit.
 
jaggedben said:
250.24(C) and 250.92(A)(1)

...
Click to expand...
Ummm... For the disconnect enclosure, 250.92(A)(2), likely utilizing (B)(1), but not the only means [i.e. could be bonded using raceway(s) and/or jumper(s)].

Not 250.24(C). That's for Service Disconnecting Means. :angel:

Technically, if you don't require a neutral for the PV System, you do not have to bring one to its disconnect. But then you'd be required to bond through other means as noted in my first sentence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top