PV GEC

[Sparky38]

The great debate, I always try and inspect per the plans and most of the time the engineers spec a GEC To be installed (on a 3 wire line side tap) from PV Disco to existing ground system. Many inspectors in my department don’t agree and say it is a clear violation of 250.6, 250.24 (C), 250.142. I don’t have an issue with the GEC From PV dIsco if that’s what the plans are calling for? What do you think

 

[ggunn]

The great debate, I always try and inspect per the plans and most of the time the engineers spec a GEC To be installed (on a 3 wire line side tap) from PV Disco to existing ground system. Many inspectors in my department don’t agree and say it is a clear violation of 250.6, 250.24 (C), 250.142. I don’t have an issue with the GEC From PV dIsco if that’s what the plans are calling for? What do you think

Per the 2023 NEC, from what I understand about it, if it is a line side PV connection then there must be a N-G bond and a GEC connection in the PV AC disconnect, but if it is connected on the load side of the service OCPD there is no N-G bond and there is an EGC back to the point of interconnection. Before that it is up to the AHJ; some will consider line side connected PV to be a separate service (N-G bond and GEC) and some will not (EGC and no N-G bond). Yes, it is confusing and inconsistent; best consult with the AHJ before finalizing the design. If you are the AHJ and not on the 2023 NEC yet, then you just need to make up your mind; prior to the 2023 NEC, either way is compliant.

 

[Sparky38]

Per the 2023 NEC, from what I understand about it, if it is a line side PV connection then there should be a N-G bond and a GEC connection in the PV AC disconnect, but if it is connected on the load side of the service OCPD there is no N-G bond and there is an EGC back to the point of interconnection. Before that it is up to the AHJ; some will consider line side connected PV to be a separate service (N-G bond and GEC) and some will not (EGC and no N-G bond). Yes, it is confusing and inconsistent; best consult with the AHJ before finalizing the design.

I am working as for the AHJ and everyone has their own opinion. Got inspectors making contractors take out GEC From PV disco even though the plan calls for it. I don’t give a hoot personally it’s whatever the engineered plans call for. Do you happen to have a code reference I would love to share that with the Cheif! We are currently in the 2017 NEC switching to 2020 1st of next year

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

I have a few questions for sparky 38.
#1, This line side tap. What do you call these conductors. The wires ran to the PV disc. From the tap.

#2 What code section would these conductors fall under.

I see this tap allowed by 230.82(6)
Therefore being service conductors being ran to the PV disconnect.

690.13(C) says connected to the supply side of the service disconnect. The PV disc shall be listed as suitable for for use as service equipment. See exact code reference for exact text.

Therefore I take this disc as a service disconnect.

After I get your take on my questions I will move forward.

I'm following along using 2017 nec

I'm taking a learning approach to the op question.
So I'm asking sparky to inspector.

 

[ggunn]

I am working as for the AHJ and everyone has their own opinion. Got inspectors making contractors take out GEC From PV disco even though the plan calls for it. I don’t give a hoot personally it’s whatever the engineered plans call for. Do you happen to have a code reference I would love to share that with the Cheif! We are currently in the 2017 NEC switching to 2020 1st of next year

Unfortunately, in code cycles prior to 2023 the NEC doesn't say concisely in plain English what it should be, so it is subject to interpretation. As a result, requirements vary. CPS in San Antonio considers supply side connected PV to be a separate service, so it gets a N-G bond and GEC connection in the PV AC disconnect, while AE in Austin does not, so in the disco they require an EGC connection run back to the point of interconnection and no N-G bond. Same code cycle (2020), different interpretations.

As a designer, and like you, I don't care; just tell me how you want it and I will design it that way. IMO you AHJ guys just need to decide and be consistent; I would suggest considering it to be a service because whenever you adopt the 2023 NEC that's the way it will be.

 

[Sparky38]

Unfortunately, in code cycles prior to 2023 the NEC doesn't say concisely in plain English what it should be, so it is subject to interpretation. As a result, requirements vary. CPS in San Antonio considers supply side connected PV to be a separate service, so it gets a N-G bond and GEC connection in the PV AC disconnect, while AE in Austin does not, so in the disco they require an EGC connection run back to the point of interconnection and no N-G bond. Same code cycle (2020), different interpretations.

As a designer, and like you, I don't care; just tell me how you want it and I will design it that way. IMO you AHJ guys just need to decide and be consistent; I would suggest considering it to be a service because whenever you adopt the 2023 NEC that's the way it will be.

Thanks, What is that code article for 2023. I do not have that book yet

 

[ggunn]

Thanks, What is that code article for 2023. I do not have that book yet

I don't, either. Most of what I know about it I got from the Photovoltaic Forum https://forums.mikeholt.com/forums/photovoltaic-forum.39/

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The great debate, I always try and inspect per the plans and most of the time the engineers spec a GEC To be installed (on a 3 wire line side tap) from PV Disco to existing ground system. Many inspectors in my department don’t agree and say it is a clear violation of 250.6, 250.24 (C), 250.142. I don’t have an issue with the GEC From PV dIsco if that’s what the plans are calling for? What do you think

You can only do that if there is a legally adopted amendment to the the adopted code that says you must inspect to the plans. If there is no such amendment, than you can only inspect to the adopted code.

 

[Sparky38]

You can only do that if there is a legally adopted amendment to the the adopted code that says you must inspect to the plans. If there is no such amendment, than you can only inspect to the adopted code.

We were told to inspect by the plans cause one designer wants it done this way and the next one wants it done a different way. And then we got dinosaur inspectors failing jobs for no apparent reason cause that’s what they been doing for 20 years

 

[Sparky38]

Does anyone have a 2023 code book that can reference a article number for the below info thanks!

Per the 2023 NEC, from what I understand about it, if it is a line side PV connection then there must be a N-G bond and a GEC connection in the PV AC disconnect, but if it is connected on the load side of the service OCPD there is no N-G bond and there is an EGC back to the point of interconnection. Before that it is up to the AHJ; some will consider line side connected PV to be a separate service (N-G bond and GEC) and some will not (EGC and no N-G bond). Yes, it is confusing and inconsistent; best consult with the AHJ before finalizing the design. If you are the AHJ and not on the 2023 NEC yet, then you just need to make up your mind; prior to the 2023 NEC, either way is compliant.

 

[ramsy]

Does anyone have a 2023 code book that can reference a article number for the below info thanks!

NFPA Link is the current tool of choice for professionals requiring multiple NFPA standards.

 

[Greentagger]

705.11(A)-(F) is what you are looking for.

 

[jaggedben]

See also 250.25. And 250.64(D).

It has taken the last two code cycles to get there, but the code is finally treating a PV supply-side connection as not meaningfully different than an additional service disconnect.

Note that having GEC or GEC tap to each disco are only 2 of the 3 options in 250.64(D). You could also have a single GEC at, say, the j-box where the line side tap is made.

. Many inspectors in my department don’t agree and say it is a clear violation of 250.6, 250.24 (C), 250.142.

As long as we are only talking about supply side connections and not load side connections....

Regarding 250.6, ask them why multiple GECs or GEC taps are permitted in 250.64(D). I don't see how they could think it's a violation of the other sections.