PV system utilizing supply side taps

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Insp88101

Member
Location
Clovis NM
Occupation
Electrician / Inspector
Ok, I am having an issue with this particular installation because we have taps in front of our OCPD that are done in 6 awg wire tapping 4/0 Awg wires, my issue comes in on the fact that this service panel is pretty crowded already and the PV wires feeding the taps are intermixed with branch circuit and feeder circuit wiring, feeding from the bottom of the panel all the way to the top with a big slack loop. That to me is presenting a possible future hazard if for some reason the wires were to short out and burn then fuse to any of the other wiring inside the area it would cause more wires to be permanently energized without OCP and quickly snowball. Is this a legitimate concern to have in this case and others like this or am I reaching beyond the scope of the NEC to much? My thoughts are for any persons and structure to become jeopardized in the even of a failure.

3020-Gidding-St-inside-main-panel-solar-taps-taken-4-22-24.jpg
 
Ok, I may have just answered my own question now, article 230.7. Not really clear in the 2020 NEC but it has been expanded and made more clear in the 2023 NEC. That brings me to another question however, we're under the 2020 NEC code cycle currently so can I still enforce article 230.7 of the 2020 NEC having the clarity from the 2023 NEC??
 
Insp88101 said:
Ok, I may have just answered my own question now, article 230.7.
Click to expand...
Your picture does not have any 230.7 violations, as that section has no restriction on colocation of service conductors and other conductors in a cabinet. The only part new part I see in 2023 NEC 230.7 is the extending the prohibition to underground boxes, but the cabinet in your photo is not underground.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Your picture does not have any 230.7 violations, as that section has no restriction on colocation of service conductors and other conductors in a cabinet. The only part new part I see in 2023 NEC 230.7 is the extending the prohibition to underground boxes, but the cabinet in your photo is not underground.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I think @Insp88101 is talking about the CT wires in the LFMC service raceway.
EDIT: but there appears to be an exception for them
3020-Gidding-St-inside-main-panel-solar-taps-taken-4-22-24.jpg
 
1000007984.jpg
So being that my picture is of the service panel then the intent of 230.7 doesn't apply?
 
Last edited:
The existing service conductors coming in the side of that panel present the same concern as the new supply-side connected PV system conductors. No Code violation though. This is done all the time under the 2020 Code.

But the 2023 Code does not have the 10-ft rule that is in the 2020 Code in 705.11(C) and it could be interpreted that supply-side connections need to be done outside the building.

The CT wires do not have overcurrent protection and should be run separately when they leave that panel at the bottom with the new supply-side PV system conductors.

They also need more separation in the cabinet from the current carrying conductors per 312.8(B)(3)(b)
 
shortcircuit2 said:
The existing service conductors coming in the side of that panel present the same concern as the new supply-side connected PV system conductors. No Code violation though. This is done all the time under the 2020 Code.

But the 2023 Code does not have the 10-ft rule that is in the 2020 Code in 705.11(C) and it could be interpreted that supply-side connections need to be done outside the building.

The CT wires do not have overcurrent protection and should be run separately when they leave that panel at the bottom with the new supply-side PV system conductors.

They also need more separation in the cabinet from the current carrying conductors per 312.8(B)(3)(b)
Click to expand...
Ok, so the service conductors are preexisting and original so since that exists I shouldn't take an issue with the addition of the solar service conductors. I was originally proposing they pipe the tap wires to the upper left side of the panel and shoot straight over to the tap location instead of running inside the panel thus minimizing exposure.
 
Insp88101 said:
Ok, so the service conductors are preexisting and original so since that exists I shouldn't take an issue with the addition of the solar service conductors. I was originally proposing they pipe the tap wires to the upper left side of the panel and shoot straight over to the tap location instead of running inside the panel thus minimizing exposure.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the NEC that would direct you to do that.
 
Elect117 said:
Those purple capped pieces are the splices? Why are there so many? L1 L2 N and then there are an extra 2.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are piercing tap devices of which I also can't find approval for "being suitable for use on line side of the service equipment" but I have another picture where is appears they changed their mind on where they wanted to make the tap.
 
BandGap1.1eV said:
It's a dumb rule, but it's technically "their" socket and they don't allow customer hardware/equipment in "their" enclosures.
Click to expand...
So they don't allow customer wires to connect to the socket?

Around here it's not their socket. I don't know what that even means if they don't provide the socket.

Also if they would allow multiple load conductors out of a socket but not one set being used for a PV system then that's just discriminatory.
 
jaggedben said:
So they don't allow customer wires to connect to the socket?

Around here it's not their socket. I don't know what that even means if they don't provide the socket.

Also if they would allow multiple load conductors out of a socket but not one set being used for a PV system then that's just discriminatory.
Click to expand...
It's not been unusual in my experience with POCOs to encounter rules of theirs that don't make sense or that I disagree with, but they are the ones with the power (pun intended) to allow or disallow a PV interconnection with a service on their network. I have on occasion tried to convince a POCO inspector or plan reviewer that a rule of theirs should be changed or thrown out but I have had only a (very) few successes.
 
ggunn said:
It's not been unusual in my experience with POCOs to encounter rules of theirs that don't make sense or that I disagree with, but they are the ones with the power (pun intended) to allow or disallow a PV interconnection with a service on their network. I have on occasion tried to convince a POCO inspector or plan reviewer that a rule of theirs should be changed or thrown out but I have had only a (very) few successes.
Click to expand...
Oh, trust me, I know the reality. Just gotta opine sometimes.
 
Insp88101 said:
I like that idea but our utility co. doesn't allow that here.
Click to expand...
They have the same rule here, it was a bit of a push on my part but I really dont like those taps in the service enclosure for the reasons you stated.
The way its worded in their spec book is they wont allow tap's in the meter socket as in a separate splicing device.
These are not taps they are double lugs provided by the factory.
When the POCO complained I pointed out they allow 320A meters with double lugs and I could use the same lugs to install a second service disconnect for a non-pv application.
 
tortuga said:
When the POCO complained I pointed out they allow 320A meters with double lugs and I could use the same lugs to install a second service disconnect for a non-pv application.
Click to expand...
How did that turn out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top