I watched most of the streaming video of Mike Holt and six PV industry professionals this weekend. The most interesting aspect of it was Mr. Holt's very dramatic build up to the Sunday discussion of Article 690.47(D) which brings back the requirement for an auxiliary grounding electrode for PV arrays. He used everything short of drum rolls to build anticipation for this part of the presentation.
Having personally contributed a short piece on this subject for SolarPro magazine along with Bill Brooks and John Wiles in 2008, I looked forward to this discussion. Finally, midday Sunday, instead of a discussion of an important and controversial part of the 2014 code, we received a rant by Mr. Holt demanding an immediate and unprecedented withdrawal of the article. Prior to his remarks, in contrast to the preceding article discussions, Mr. Holt asked that the guest panel not make any comments that would explain how the requirement came to return to the code after being eliminated in the 2011 edition, or any comment that might "confuse" the issue. To my very great surprise and disappointment, they complied, uttering not a single word, nodding their heads and moving on to the next article. After all the buildup by Mr. Holt, the "discussion" amounted to his monolog, which if parsed, though stated to be for safety concerns, seemed primarily an exercise designed to sell his books, videos and consulting services on grounding. This was of course expected. The weekend live streaming was generously offered free of charge, a rare opportunity to hear current PV expert opinion on the NEC. My concern is that Mr. Holt's control of the process here inhibited the dialog that should have taken place. There are significant implications of allowing his opinion to go unchallenged. Is there, or is there not, any merit in 690.47(D)? Could the language be better? Could the requirement be modified to make it better rather than simply discarding it? Does accepting his argument mean all those systems installed according to the 2008 code are unsafe? Mr. Holt explicitly stated his desire to create a groundswell of opinion to immediately eliminate this requirement of the code. Would it not be better to carefully think through and discuss the issue, in contrast to what was permitted on his "show"? Dick Ratico Solarwind Electric --- You wrote: Dear Wrenches, Several of your co-wrenches are helping Mike Holt with the video companion to his PV & the NEC 2014 book. So since you spend all your weekdays thinking about the NEC, what better way to spend this weekend than to watch NEC nerds discuss the meanings of shalls and shall-nots, the unwelcome return of 690.47(D), and the continued flights of our favorite sections to 705, right? Before you answer that, know that you can also ask questions during the video in case something is unclear or if we're wrong about something. Broadcasting (free) from: www.MikeHolt.com/live Times: ~9a-4p ET Sat 12/7 ~9a-5p ET Sun 12/8 Video from this weekend will be what's edited into the official DVD that Mike puts out in the next few weeks. Because Bill Brooks has a great joke about separate direct-current grounding electrode systems bonded to the alternating current grounding electrode systems that you don't want to miss, Dave PS If this post violates list etiquette, my apologies in advance, Michael. We don't get a commission, if that helps... _______________________________________ --- end of quote --- _______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: [email protected] Change email address & 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
