Marv Couple your comments with a delay in adoption of certain years of the code, by jurisdiction. For example, the city and county of Honolulu have yet to adopt the '08 code and are still working on '05. This can influence the interpretation of 690.64B for the residential-commercial 120%-100% situation that is cleared up in the '08 code. There are other islands in this tropical archipelago that are on the '02 code, so more distinctions need to be made and clarified for these folks. We also don't have congruency by island from a utility perspective as well in regard to interconnection protocols and we are already up against an even more pressing situation- Grid Access! The utilities feeders are getting "full" on the neighbor islands and they are starting to require interconnection studies to determine whether or not you can even connect to the grid.......this will get more pronounced as time marches on, but who would have thought that a day like this would come....you are the last person on the street to make the switch to clean power, only to be told, no.....unless you can fork over thousands of $ to study the infrastructure......
It seems here, even on this island, there are inspectors that are unclear themselves, as to how to approach a host of topics, and grounding is one of them. ________________________________ From: Marv Dargatz <mdarg...@enphaseenergy.com> To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:15:57 PM Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] 690.47 Keith, The whole grounding issue has been very contentious, confounding, and confusing. The introduction of the changes with the 2008 NEC seems to have complicated things further. Also, just a general comment; in general (there will be exceptions for larger systems, depending on electrical configuration), this code section applies equally to all PV inverters. There should be no difference with an Enphase installation and a traditional string installation. What version of code are you referencing? 2005 and 2008 differ slightly. I'd like to get a consensus on all of these grounding issues. It's too late for the 2011 code, but maybe we can clear this up with the 2014 code. BTW, the explanatory note after paragraph 690.47(C)(8) in the 2008 handbook offers some clarification. I'm anxious to get John W. and Bill B.'s opinion on this. See Ya! Marv Enphase Energy 707 763-4784 x7016 Keith Cronin wrote: Hello A discussion came up today about 690.47(C)(1)+(2) in regards to using the Enphase products and the applicability of needing a separate ground rod for the DC? Anyone get any feedback from their colleagues or inspectors regarding this and how they approached this? The discussion also swirled around them both being bonded regardless, so the question of necessity was in question. Thanks Keith ________________________________ _______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Options & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Options & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
