I support Bill's assertion here and his work on the code making committee. Certain AHJ's in California are obsessing about center-fed residential panels. (County of Santa Barbara, for example) The result is unnecessary meter-main panel upgrades. These upgrades drive the cost of solar installations up significantly ($2000-$4000.) This added cost acts as barrier-to-entry into the solar market.
The problem with all of this is that *center-fed residential panels are not a safety problem to begin with. * Thus, we get: A) increased cost, B) fewer solar installations and C) no improvement in overall safety. Put simply, *this is a lose-lose situation that needs to be addressed now*, because adoption of the 2017 code is a long way away for most of us. Best regards, Abe ----------------------------- John Abraham Powell CEO Solforce W. 805/695-0015 C. 805/895-2355 E. [email protected] www.solforce.com CA License. 806685 On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > > > While John’s article may seem like a logical interpretation of the 2014 > NEC, if you lived in the western half of the United States where these > panels are common, you would have a very different view of his choice of > articles. > > > > His article sites a technicality that is not a safety concern in the > least. Of all the things that AHJs have to worry about with PV, this has to > be at the very bottom of the list—and yet this is the only thing that many > AHJs look at because someone wrote an article about it. We set the record > straight in the 2017 NEC, but that does not fix the fact that literally > 1,000s of these perfectly fine panels have been removed due to the focus of > this magazine article. > > > > Your opinion of this interpretation would be very different if you had > lost a PV system sale because someone was unwilling to incur the extra cost > of a panel change out when you knew it was totally unnecessary. > > > > I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing in the > northeast. I’m just helping with some “perspective” from the left coast. > > > > I’m off my high horse, > > > > Bill. > > > > *From:* RE-wrenches [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Christopher Warfel > *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:42 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule > for center-fed panelboards > > > > This is a link to John Wiles article on NEC2014 for this topic. To my > knowledge, no one has adopted NEC2017, so it would seem that this article > is appropriate for the most recent NEC published. As noted AHJs can allow > exceptions, and it is great that new language is now approved for NEC2017, > but that wasn't the case when John Wiles published his article. > > > http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/center-fed-load-centers-and-panelboards/ > > There is also pdf version here. > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjl8OmH26TLAhWI7D4KHcbJAHQQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdept-wp.nmsu.edu%2Fswtdi%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F11%2Fiaei_jul-aug_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERV2M21V1nvLlvLVSLZUMoj36J_A&sig2=g145SdF1HzNuHc0P6NXshw&bvm=bv.115339255,d.cWw&cad=rja > > > Chris > > > On 3/2/2016 2:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > All, > > > > Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more > authoritative than JW). > > > > 705.12(B)(3)(d) > > > > (d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed > panelboard in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of > the power source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the > overcurrent device protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the > current rating of the busbar. > > > > This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% > rule to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from > 2005 back to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels > did not need the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in > California or considering making an official policy accepting the language > of the 2017 NEC on this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction. > > > > Bill. > > > > > > *From:* RE-wrenches [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Burt > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM > *To:* RE-wrenches <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule > for center-fed panelboards > > > > I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, > therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an > AHJ. > > Supply side connections are very popular in this situation. > ------------------------------ > > *From: *August Goers <[email protected]> > *Sent: *3/2/2016 11:32 > *To: *RE-wrenches <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for > center-fed panelboards > > All – > > > > We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) > 120% rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A > meter/main combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% > rule at all and need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in > this case? > > > > Best, > > > > August > > Luminalt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > Christopher Warfel, President > > ENTECH Engineering, Inc. > > PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807 > > 401-466-8978 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ 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
