shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
I know we have discussed this before but 2 leading industry experts are calling it different.
I'm referring to the 1st disconnect for a Supply Side Connection of a Photovoltaic Power Source at a building with a utility supply.
1. In the EC&M article on page 33 of the OCT. 2013 issue Mike Holt defines it as the Photovoltaic System Disconnect and says that bonding the grounded conductor and raceways on line side connections in only "suggested".
2. In the IAEI article on page 60 of the Nov/Dec 2013 issue John Wiles defines it as the Photovoltaic Service Disconnect and says all chapter 2 service requirements "should" apply such as bonding the grounded conductor and raceways along with the rest of requirements for service disconnects.
I have stated my position before with regard to this and side with John Wiles but feel the "should" must be replaced with "Shall"
Why be so indecisive on this issue? Why leave it open to interpretation? The code needs more concise language on this issue.
If there is a Supply Side Connection to a Utility Supply, the conductors and equipment between the connection and the disconnect are subject to the Available Fault Current of the Utility Supply and must be treated as we treat all other connections to a Utility Supply and subject to the rules for services in article 230 of the NEC.
I'm referring to the 1st disconnect for a Supply Side Connection of a Photovoltaic Power Source at a building with a utility supply.
1. In the EC&M article on page 33 of the OCT. 2013 issue Mike Holt defines it as the Photovoltaic System Disconnect and says that bonding the grounded conductor and raceways on line side connections in only "suggested".
2. In the IAEI article on page 60 of the Nov/Dec 2013 issue John Wiles defines it as the Photovoltaic Service Disconnect and says all chapter 2 service requirements "should" apply such as bonding the grounded conductor and raceways along with the rest of requirements for service disconnects.
I have stated my position before with regard to this and side with John Wiles but feel the "should" must be replaced with "Shall"
Why be so indecisive on this issue? Why leave it open to interpretation? The code needs more concise language on this issue.
If there is a Supply Side Connection to a Utility Supply, the conductors and equipment between the connection and the disconnect are subject to the Available Fault Current of the Utility Supply and must be treated as we treat all other connections to a Utility Supply and subject to the rules for services in article 230 of the NEC.