Jason,
It sounds like you want to get involved with the PV industry forum. We have about 30+ active members this year so your input would be welcome. I think your idea about organization needs to be informed about some details. First of all, you need to read the new, very different, 705.12(D). SolarPro has a nice article about code updates. Secondly, rules on the supply side are very different than load side. Supply side connections, by definition have no loads connected to them. It is simpler and does not need any 120% rule. The 120% rule is a very conservative restriction. No such restriction exists on the supply side. Too much to cover all the issues now—suffice it to say there are many, many reasons to keep supply-side and load-side connections separate. Bill. From: RE-wrenches [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Szumlanski Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:45 AM To: RE-wrenches Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Combining Multiple Inverters It depends on your applicable code. In the 2008 code, 690.64(B) was specifically titled "Load Side" and the provisions of that section in full were not applicable to supply side connections. That was probably not the intention (i.e. the 120% rule and OCPD requirements should have applied to aggregation panels). In the 2011 code, 705.12(D) is the similar section, but it has been titled "Utility Interactive Inverters." This section now "allows" load side connections, but the requirements (1) through (7) of this section still apply to supply side connections (my interpretation). The better code organization IMO would be: 705.12 (A) Allow supply side connections 705.12 (B) Allow load side connections 705.12 (C) Integrated Electrical Systems 705.12 (D)(1)-(7) The requirements for all interconnection methods 705.12 (E) Greater than 100kW A bit off-topic, but we recently had a utility reject a plan to install a 320A meter socket with a 200A main distribution panel and a 100A solar aggregation panel (with four 20A backfed breakers). The two panels were to be fed from double lugs in the meter can. They said this was not allowed - they didn't want solar in their meter can. When I pointed out that dual 200A load panels are commonly fed this way and this was no different because I could just backfeed each 200A panel with two 20A breakers, my comment was met with blank stares. Jason Szumlanski Fafco Solar <https://wisestamp.appspot.com/pixview.gif?p=chrome&v=3.42.0&t=1403872191075&u=dedcb4cd140ce271> <http://ws-stats.appspot.com/ga/pixel.png?yes__count=true%20&e=legacy_impression> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Corey Shalanski <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aY3NoYWxhbnNraUBqb3VsZS1lbmVyZ3kuY29t&type=zerocontent&guid=4710ea9a-f97d-435f-a3b5-0de6c0b1180d> ᐧ Perhaps I should've been more specific with my scenario. I was imagining a supply side connection, as this would more commonly be the case when combining multiple inverters. In this case it seems like the provisions of 705.12(D) for load side conections don't even apply, no? Rather 705.12(A) becomes the relevant section, and I see very few restrictions there. Even with a load side connection I would tend to agree with Jason's interpretation: Does the "source interconnection" in 705.12(D)(1) refer to each individual inverter, or can it refer to an aggregated "source"? I am interested in pursuing this idea, mainly to understand how/where the NEC forbids it. In lieu of a clear Code reference against it, how is this any different from a branch circuit (in reverse)? ie, as with microinverters. -- Corey Shalanski Joule Energy New Orleans, LA <https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Message: 11 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:10:07 -0400 From: Jason Szumlanski <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: RE-wrenches <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Combining Multiple Inverters Message-ID: <cajjtg3oqgblzatinuhfp_ghivzyd6dldslankc1ofg9tr1r...@mail.gmail.com <mailto:cajjtg3oqgblzatinuhfp_ghivzyd6dldslankc1ofg9tr1r...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 705.12(D) reads, "... the interconnection provisions for the utility-interactive inverter(s) shall comply with (D)(1) through (D)(7)." That's inverters - plural. The interconnection must be protected by dedicated OCPD, not each inverter individually. Microinverters comply because of this interpretation. That said, I've never done it. An accumulator panel is pretty cost effective when you consider the alternative cost of an enclosure and the Polaris connectors. I guess if you are making the Polaris connections inside the main load center or inside an inverter you can eliminate the cost of a dedicated enclosure. There would be some material and labor savings. ?If the inverter has a maximum OCPD rating, you will be limited by that. ?Microinverters "get around" that by the wire and inverter being sized/rated for the entire maximum string. Jason Szumlanski --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Redwood Alliance List Address: [email protected] Change listserver email address & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out or update participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
