Question about conduit entering a pedestal type meter base

Status
Not open for further replies.
electrofelon said:
What exactly is the policy? I guess they could state something like "supply side PV interconnections shall not be made in the CT enclosure". But then seems like you could just call it 230.40 exception #2, add another set to a MB combiner panel, and connect load side to that using the sum of all OCPD excluding the OCPD protecting the busbar rule.
Click to expand...
Their policy is that they do not allow any third party connections in their CT enclosures, and we run into that a lot with utilities. Throwing code at them doesn't make any difference; with utilities we have to play by their rules or not play. It can be very frustrating, but that's just the way it is. I don't know why you keep wanting to wrestle with me over this; maybe your experience with utilities is different but this is mine.

I was in a meeting with another utility a couple of weeks ago where we had them dead to rights. They were failing us on inspections where they had nothing in the NEC to support their position, but when we pointed that out to them, they just said "we invoke our right to write exceptions to the NEC, so we do that here and now on this issue". End of discussion. Their way or the highway. Frustrating? You betcherass.
 
electrofelon said:
...you could just call it 230.40 exception #2, add another set to a MB combiner panel, and connect load side to that using the sum of all OCPD excluding the OCPD protecting the busbar rule.
Click to expand...
We thought of that but it wasn't possible due to physical constraints.
 
ggunn said:
We thought of that but it wasn't possible due to physical constraints.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify how that arrangement would be different from what you actually did? On first glance I would think they would be identical, and the difference would be semantic.

Likewise, in your experience, do your utilities respond differently to the request "we need to open the CT can to add a PV line side connection" vs "we need to open the CT can to add another set of service entrance conductors to a new service disconnect"?

Thanks,
Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Could you clarify how that arrangement would be different from what you actually did? On first glance I would think they would be identical, and the difference would be semantic.
Click to expand...
I confess that I didn't do a deep dive into what he suggested, but to my cursory look it seemed to me that he was talking about adding something between the CT can and the MDP, which was not feasible. I apologize if I misinterpreted his suggestion, but just doing what we wanted to do and calling it something different would have made no difference to the utility.
wwhitney said:
Likewise, in your experience, do your utilities respond differently to the request "we need to open the CT can to add a PV line side connection" vs "we need to open the CT can to add another set of service entrance conductors to a new service disconnect"?
Click to expand...
I don't have any experience with that; I only do solar.
 
ggunn said:
. . . but just doing what we wanted to do and calling it something different would have made no difference to the utility.

I don't have any experience with that; I only do solar.
Click to expand...
If you've only presented it as a solar line side connection, not as a separate sent of service entrance conductors (as the second statement suggests), then I don't see how you would know how the utility would react.

I'm curious, what utility?

Cheers, Wayne
 
electrofelon said:
What exactly is the policy? I guess they could state something like "supply side PV interconnections shall not be made in the CT enclosure". But then seems like you could just call it 230.40 exception #2, add another set to a MB combiner panel, and connect load side to that using the sum of all OCPD excluding the OCPD protecting the busbar rule.
Click to expand...
You generally don't cite NEC content to POCO people, it means nothing to them.
 
wwhitney said:
If you've only presented it as a solar line side connection, not as a separate sent of service entrance conductors (as the second statement suggests), then I don't see how you would know how the utility would react.

I'm curious, what utility?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I don't remember which utility it was; it was many projects ago. Somewhere in Ohio, maybe? Or Kentucky? It doesn't make any difference; nearly every utility I have approached with the idea of interconnecting in their CT can has said no. The only two exceptions I can remember are the one I just spoke of (and they dragged their feet) and one other who didn't care (that one was in Michigan, I am pretty sure).

When we go to a utility to apply for a PV interconnection permit we always go through their solar department (they all have them now), so it's a PV interconnection from the very start and we are dealing with different people than if we were adding another service disconnect.
 
ggunn said:
Their policy is that they do not allow any third party connections in their CT enclosures, and we run into that a lot with utilities. Throwing code at them doesn't make any difference; with utilities we have to play by their rules or not play. It can be very frustrating, but that's just the way it is. I don't know why you keep wanting to wrestle with me over this; maybe your experience with utilities is different but this is mine.

.
Click to expand...

Sorry I am really not trying to argue, I just am not understanding. I don't understand the statement "third party connections in their CT enclosure". Perhaps you have mostly delt with situations where the CT enclosure is in the utility side of the service point? Where I work it is pretty much always on the customer side of the service point, so yeah the utility has something to say about it for sure, but the conductors and CT enclosure are provided and owned by the customer - no different than a self contained meter base.

Ok, consider the following situation: the site has 5 existing grouped service disconnects (per 230.40 ex #2). You want to add a 6th grouped service disconnect and another set of service conductors to the CT cabinet. Let's assume the CT can has the lugs and the utility has no concern for any increased load. I can't see any reason whatsoever for the utility to have an issue with this.

So what is the difference between the above situation and making a supply side connection to the CT enclosure? If you are aware of a utility having an issue with PV interconnections for some silly reason - such as considering them "taps" - then why not just approach it has adding a "normal" set of conductors and service disconnect?
 
ggunn said:
When we go to a utility to apply for a PV interconnection permit we always go through their solar department (they all have them now), so it's a PV interconnection from the very start and we are dealing with different people than if we were adding another service disconnect.
Click to expand...


Perhaps in the future try wording the POCO paperwork such as "rearrange electrical service to accommodate load side PV interconnection"? Then add your additional set of service entrance conductors per 230.40 exception #2, and connect load side to that? Only disadvantage I can think of is your new disconnect would have to be grouped with the others, while if you were calling it a "PV disconnect" then I believe it would not need to be grouped with the "normal" disconnects?
 
I have nothing more to contribute to this thread, so I will just recap and bow out.

I am a commercial PV designer and have been for several years with three different companies. I have something on the order of 75-80 commercial PV systems in place or in progress, ranging in size from a few tens of kW DC to 1.4MW DC in about 15 different jurisdictions. I do not ask to interconnect my systems in the utility CT enclosures all that often, but of the times I have, only two utilities allowed it. More than half of my systems are in three jurisdictions in Texas, all of whom I have asked and all of whom have said no, unequivocally. That's been my experience; some of yours may be different.

Peace out.
 
ggunn said:
ranging in size from a few tens of kW DC to 1.4MW DC
Click to expand...
Could be the size of those systems, the smallest systems you've done 'a few tens of kw' are my the hi-end.
I'd love a tour of your 1.4MW one.
ggunn said:
That's been my experience
Click to expand...
We do appreciate you sharing your experience, man. In dealing with utilities kinda reminds me of dealing with a crying 4 year old that not your kid, it can be frustrating, so I see fellons logic also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top