690.12 says RSD is required when PV system circuits are installed "in or on buildings", and in Article 100 the NEC merely defines a building as "a structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls."Seems the BEST way to avoid RSD -- is keep Solar OFF of Buildings.
This still (generally) leaves Ground Mounts, Parking Covers, Pergolas, and Shade Structures (for example) of Not-A-Building.
And do not let these "structures" touch, lean-to, or share roof / connections with buildings, else they also be considered part of that building.
Next thing to watch for is to NOT bring the DC leads INTO a building.
So. NO "building" + NO DC leads into building = NO RSD.
Pretty soon we will not so much need inspectors as much as Mental Health specialists.
Did that City run it through Plan Reviews before issuing the permit?690.12 says RSD is required when PV system circuits are installed "in or on buildings", and in Article 100 the NEC merely defines a building as "a structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls."
Hmmm...
We just finished building a 718kW DC PV system on 15 parking shade structures with no RSD (my design), so we will see what the AHJ thinks about it. Obviously we feel confident that parking covers are not buildings but I will breathe a little easier after we have passed inspection.
Yes, so there is that. We have been told by more than one city, though, that the issuance of a permit does not guarantee that the design has been gone over thoroughly enough to have caught everything.Did that City run it through Plan Reviews before issuing the permit?
An interesting approach, but laughable from a design standpoint in it's current deployment method. The only one I'm aware of currently is the SMA/Sollega configuration. This requires (emphasis, REQUIRES) the use of plastic zip ties as a wire management method. These are guaranteed to break withing 5 years of deployment and will result in wires in direct contact with the racking, module frames, and the roof surface. And physically separate sub-arrays are not possible. Two scenarios that are non-starters for systems I design.A lot of inverter and racking manufacturers have been working together to satisfy 690.12(B)(2)(1). It is listed under UL 3741.
I made contact with sollega and I sent them the project details so far it looks like it will make sense but I have to wait and see if the county of sacramento will accept this sollega configuration. The UL sticker will protect us LOL.An interesting approach, but laughable from a design standpoint in it's current deployment method. The only one I'm aware of currently is the SMA/Sollega configuration. This requires (emphasis, REQUIRES) the use of plastic zip ties as a wire management method. These are guaranteed to break withing 5 years of deployment and will result in wires in direct contact with the racking, module frames, and the roof surface. And physically separate sub-arrays are not possible. Two scenarios that are non-starters for systems I design.
I love the idea of getting away from MLPEs, but the current requirements/limitations of 3741 are a joke.
Plus, now its a fight with the permitting authorities who've gotten use to MLPEs and rapid shutdown. Now we have to convince them that "oh no, don't worry. There is still 1000V circuits in the array for your to cut through, but you see that UL sticker? That's going to protect you."
