Allowed PV

Status
Not open for further replies.

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I have a plan check right now where there is an existing 100 amp panel with no main and they are showing 30 amps of solar on the panel. I'm saying that they are only allowed 20 amps as it's based on the bus bar rating. He's saying that since there isn't a main that he could have a 100 amps of solar if he wanted.

HELP.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Is this a subpanel (in which case you look at the amps of the feeder breaker) or a service panel with multiple disconnect breakers (in which case you have a line side tap)
In the first case the 120% rule applies based on the feeder breaker size.
In the second case you could go to whatever the service amperage or bus rating is, whichever is smaller.

Tapatalk!
 
Last edited:

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
If the panel has a 100A or larger bus, the service is 100A or larger, he uses a hold down on the breaker and the inspector understands line side connections, AND neither POCO nor AHJ have a local rule against line side taps.
Yes.
The calculated connected load must also be no more than 100A, which is pretty much given. The sum of the load breakers can then be greater than 100A.

Tapatalk!
 
Last edited:

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
So it is a supply side tap. Interesting.
Yup. It has not yet hit a service overcurrent device.
Regardless of whether the conductors (including panel bus) are on the POCO or customer side of the service demarcation, they are still service conductors all the way up to the first OCPD.



Tapatalk!
 

Paul HH

Member
Seems like total loads cannot be greater than the bus rating in disconnect panels?

Seems like total loads cannot be greater than the bus rating in disconnect panels?

I have the same problem landing a backfeed breaker on a panel that has only disconnect breakers. There are slots for 6 DP breakers, 4 are already full (100,50,40,60) so the total is 200. The part of the label I can see says 200A bus rating. The only code references I have found (220 part II) imply that you could use the regular all-in-one type load panel calculations to size max load, but I think those assume there is a main breaker to protect the bus bars. Even if your branch circuit loads total 300 AMPs, there is still the main to keep the bus bars from melting. In the disconnect panel, every breaker can draw full load with no combined protection.

Right now for my particular system, there is no problem. I put the 40A backfeed breaker in, the loads on the bus can draw all 200 and get the other 160 from the grid. I think my general question is about max. loads allowed in these disconnect only panels. If someone puts another 50 AMP breaker in the last slot, the bus limits can obviously be exceeded with our without the solar backfeed.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
At least some feel that line side PV disconnects are not part of the six handle limit at all, since they are technically not service disconnects.
But as a practical matter I would choose to use AC combiners so that the final line side connection would be through one breaker.

Tapatalk!
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
I am part of the "some" that are on the fence, and recognize that the Code should probably differentiate between resi and commercial here. Resi...limit to 6 means of disconnect, grouped. I do not approve of the logic chain that follows when we do not treat the PV as a service disconnect. The code as currently written pretty clearly (see 'mud' definition) indicates that PV should not count towards the six, and cannot be co-located, but this interpretation is silly, and does nothing to fulfill the intent of any service disconnect related provision.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
To further clarify my position, as a first responder I want no more than six throws of the hand (an admittedly arbitrary number), and clear signage indicating the presence of a fire pump or permitted stand by system. PV, at this point anyhow, is not typically directly providing power to critical life safety systems.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
In the context of a larger commercial or utility-scale systems, I feel there is no justification for limiting to 6 total. Firefighters responding to a thermal event at a large facility will be briefed before arriving, and will be fully prepared to flip 12 or a thousand switches if needed.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
A device that disconnects a set of service entrance conductors is a service disconnect. Frankly, I have grown tired of the minority continuing to hold sway in this so-called debate. The adults in the room need to firmly assert that there is no benefit to holding the opinion that a supply side connection disconnect be treated as anything other than a service disconnect. Hopefully the CMP can set the bickering aside for a minute and get this in the 2017 cycle.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
A device that disconnects a set of service entrance conductors is a service disconnect. Frankly, I have grown tired of the minority continuing to hold sway in this so-called debate. The adults in the room need to firmly assert that there is no benefit to holding the opinion that a supply side connection disconnect be treated as anything other than a service disconnect. Hopefully the CMP can set the bickering aside for a minute and get this in the 2017 cycle.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I agree.
 

SolarPro

Senior Member
Location
Austin, TX
The problem lies in the Article 100 definitions, specifically:

service = conductors and equipment for delivering electric energy from the serving utility to the wiring of the premises served

Mike Holt does a nice job of clarifying that regardless of whether or not supply-side interconnected electric power production sources meet the definition of a service?they clearly do not?they need to be built to the same standard:

Supply-Side Connections

Section 705.12(A) allows for the interconnection of power production sources to the supply side of the servicedisconnecting means, often referred to as line-side connections. For consistency with the Code, I refer to them as supply-side connections. For the purposes of this article, ?power production sources? are classified as PV systems.

A sentence added to this subsection in 2011 helps clarify how much current PV systems can impose on the service conductors. The sum of the overcurrent protection devices (OCPDs) from the PV system connected to the service conductors cannot exceed the service conductors? rating.

Beyond 705.12(A), the NEC does not provide rules for the methods required to make supply-side connections. Consequently, PV system integrators have had to improvise and work with their inspectors to install systems that everyone thinks are safe. In most cases, this has resulted in treating supply-side connections as service connections and following the direction of Article 230 exclusively, even though this approach is not completely accurate because of the differences between utility services and other electrical power production sources such as PV. Unfortunately, the lack of direct guidance pertaining to the methods required to make supply-side connections leads to multiple interpretations and Code applications among installers and inspectors. In this article I present what I consider to be the best options under the circumstances.

One example where the lack of Code guidance can cause confusion is in determining how to apply Section 230.71(A), ?Maximum Number of Disconnects,? to supply-side PV connections. Section 230.71(A), which electricians often refer to as the ?six-handle rule,? requires that the service disconnecting means contain no more than six sets of service disconnects per service. Technically, the disconnecting means for a PV system is not a service disconnect. Article 100 defines a service as ?the conductors and equipment for delivering electric energy from the serving utility to the wiring system of the premises served.? Because a PV system is outside that definition, the PV disconnecting means is not governed by the six-handle rule. Section 690.14(C) (4) requires that PV system disconnecting means must have no more than six switches or six circuit breakers. Given the Code definitions and requirements, a supply-side connection could have up to six PV-specific disconnects in addition to the utility service disconnects.

This conclusion contradicts solar integrators? traditional line of thinking, as well as information presented in the article ?Can We Land?? (see June/July 2009, SolarPro magazine). My position is that a PV system disconnecting means is not a service disconnect because the inverter?s output circuit is not a utility service, and the utility service is not affected when the disconnect is in the Off position. PV system disconnects are service rated, contain overcurrent protection and must be installed in a similar fashion to service disconnects, but PV system disconnects are not service disconnects. This interpretation of the Code will likely require a conversation with your AHJ, one I suggest having before the final inspection if you feel there will be any questions or objections.

The NEC also lacks specific guidelines for supply-side connections in the bonding of grounded PV conductors, bonding raceways and wiring methods for the inverter output circuit. The methods I recommend below result in the PV disconnecting means being installed under the same rules as service disconnects. These methods are not direct Code requirements, but rather what I consider best practices using existing rules from Code that result in a safe installation utilizing supply-side connections, and they will satisfy most AHJs.

Grounded conductor bonding. The grounded current-carrying conductor on the supply side of service equipment for PV systems should be bonded to the PV disconnect in accordance with Section 250.24. This is to make sure that the grounded service conductor provides the effective groundfault current path from the power supply to ensure that dangerous voltages from a ground fault are quickly removed by opening the OCPD.

Raceway bonding. Raceways containing the supply side of service equipment conductors for PV systems should be bonded in accordance with Section 250.92(B). This helps ensure the electrical continuity at the service equipment, as intended by Code.

Wiring methods. The conductors and methods used for supply-side connected PV systems should be limited to those identified in Section 230.43. Using these methods keeps the inverter output circuit consistent with the wiring methods used for the service conductors. This imposes a higher standard on the wiring methods, as compared to treating them as branch circuits, and results in a robust installation.

It does make a lot of sense to differentiate between residential and commercial applications when it comes to things like the six-handle rule or the new 690.12 (rapid shutdown) requirements.
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
Agreed. I have been pretty vocal about this issue on this forum and elsewhere. I really do not find the definition all that troublesome, a bit outdated, yes. I would never argue that a typical resi PV system is a separate service, so in my view the definition of a service doesn't even come into play. A house with pv that is connected on the supply side still only has a single service. Mr. Holt has done a fair job of explaining the concepts, but the explanation still has a few flaws in logic. It is my opinion that he may be over thinking, and the storyline starts to unravel at "My position is that a PV disconnecting means..." ; a service disconnect is never defined by what is connected to its load side terminals. Why would pv be any different?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 

Paul HH

Member
Panel has 6 throws, but doesn't seem like the issue

Panel has 6 throws, but doesn't seem like the issue

The service panel has space for only 6 DP breakers, so it seems to meet the 6 switches thing, but is that really relevant to whether you are allowed to put in load breakers whose sum exceeds the bus rating?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top