He did...Of course. Did someone mention a CB?
He did...Of course. Did someone mention a CB?
There's an advantage to the way it is (but not PV only) that you are forgetting. The PV System disconnect (that you are calling a service disconnect) is not required to be grouped with any actual service disconnect. If you chamge to call it a service disconnect, then it would be required to be grouped with others. That said, I realize some POCO's and/or AHJ's may require it to be grouped anyway...
There's an advantage to the way it is (but not PV only) that you are forgetting. The PV System disconnect (that you are calling a service disconnect) is not required to be grouped with any actual service disconnect. If you chamge to call it a service disconnect, then it would be required to be grouped with others.
Even if I am reading that wrong, I still say it would be more logical to delete 230.82(6) and 230.40 Ex #5 and simply add en exception in the appropriate spot allowing a Disconnecting means serving solely a PV system to not be grouped with any other service disconnecting means.
No, but they are often used to implement a disconnect which also requires OCPD.Of course. Did someone mention a CB?
I am working on a 1 MW PV installation which got me thinking about a few things. For the purpose of this discussion, assume the NEC applies here. I was having a discussion with a coworker about a few code violations the engineer made. One was that he didnt upsize the feeder EGC's proportionate to the ungrounded conductors which had been upsized for voltage drop. The coworker said there was an exception to that rule for PV and I stated but that the feeder wasnt part of that exception. Anyway, that got me thinking about this broader question: Is there anything different about a service or feeder that contains ONLY PV generation and no loads? I say no, except for indirect consequences such as 705.12(D)(3)(c). Similarly, is there anything special about a PV line side tap? I say no its just adding another set of service entrance conductors and an additional service disconnecting means correct? I see no purpose to 230.82(6). Does anyone disagree with this?
I know we aren't supposed to use a CB that has line and load distinctions stamped on it for interconnecting PV, but I have never seen one. I assume they exist.No, but they are often used to implement a disconnect which also requires OCPD.
There's an advantage to the way it is (but not PV only) that you are forgetting. The PV System disconnect (that you are calling a service disconnect) is not required to be grouped with any actual service disconnect. If you chamge to call it a service disconnect, then it would be required to be grouped with others. That said, I realize some POCO's and/or AHJ's may require it to be grouped anyway...
jaggedben said:There's another issue, as well, which is defining the ampacity rules for supply side connections.
Can you elaborate a bit on this and its implications? Thanks