I agree that the RSD requirements are too onerous and give the MI and MLPE players are leg up on string inverters with their add-on solutions.
Ditto for IFC requirements for a 3’ roof ridge setback. Still have not met a fire chief who says that venting is their method but when asked if they’d like to cede the space back by policy, the answer is, “no, why would we?” Broadly speaking, energy efficiency measures mandated for “solar ready” are not enforced but the “safety” measure are. Probably time for an academic study figuring out the cost we have incurred in the pursuit of this, versus the risks avoided. I know, I know…somebody is going to say, “if we’ve saved one roof fire…” But that mentality makes for a lot of costs, sometimes without much logical basis. Scot Arey Solar Centex From: RE-wrenches <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 6:32 PM To: RE-wrenches <[email protected]> Cc: Rebecca Cantwell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown Again? I think Rapid Shutdown should be scrapped professionally and personally. It was ill conceived and ill written. Anyone willing to join me in a petition to CMP 44 and the like, contact me off list. To your question directly, you have a ground mounted system and you are not subject to 690.12 unless your conductors are "in or on building" which i cannot seem to find what that actually means. Exempted are buildings that are isolated only for the PV system This is a big win for installers as almost everyone installs systems like this....... Right. They used to have a dimension to this, but I guess that gave installers too much information. This is a stupid Code addition for roof mounted pv systems, disguised as protecting Firefighters, but not doing so in reality. The NEC looks politically compromised by consultants and manufacturers who too advantage of this fear mongering. No other country with a pv industry has historically done this. Why are installers not up in arms about this? This is the NEC reference. 690.12 Rapid Shutdown of PV Systems on Buildings. PV system circuits installed on or in buildings shall include a rapid shutdown function to reduce shock hazard for emergency responders in accordance with 690.12(A) through (D). If your system is ground mounted, you are outside the "altruistic" intent of 690.12 of protecting Firefighters. Put a initiation device disconnect switch at the array. Any supporters of RS should chime in with the support of 690.12 and add clarity and guidance to those of us who actually install systems and have to deal with this baloney. 690.12 has caused more problems for multimode systems than any tariffs, which are bad enough. I don' think the industry needs any more "safe design and installation" assistance from the CMPs involved with this issue. Chris Warfel On 2018-08-23 00:31, Ray wrote: Greetings fellow wrenches; I know we have beat this many times but I once again have not been able to resolve the contradictory information in 690 in regards to implementing 690.12. As Rebekah Hren pointed out before, the diagrams shown in Figure 690.1(b) show that the PV System DC Circuit stops at the PV Disconnect. Note 2 says specifically the 'PV Disconnect separates the PV system from all other systems'. But then in the definitions in 690.2 on the next page, the new definition of a PV System DC Circuit says that it includes DC to DC converter output circuits. (which are Solar Edge module level controls, but could be interpreted as a MPPT battery charge Controller?) Then 690.12 which only applies to 'PV System circuits in or on buildings', says we have to control conductors more than 3 ft after penetrating the building. So in my case, I'm looking at a ground mount, and installing an external lockable disconnect on the wall before it goes into the building. This will officially be the PV Disconnect. In my interpretation, I should not need to do any Rapid Shutdown, because I've essentially prevented the PV system from ever entering the building at all ( based on the 5th diagram and Note 2) However, I could see an AHJ claiming I had to do RS all the way to the output side of the charge controller. If this were true, could I simply apply RS equipment from the PV disconnect to the output of the charge controller, or am I back to module level shutdown for my ground mounted array, or could I build a tiny building that just housed the PV Disconnect and take the exemption for 'buildings with the sole purpose of housing PV system equipment'? Essentially the definitions in 690.2 are too broad, and are at odds with the Figure and Notes of 690.1. They really didn't fix this in the 2017 code for us lowly off gridders. Charge controllers are covered by article 706.23 Charge Control, and NOT by 690.12 at all. IMHO, the charge controller needs to be clearly defined and differentiated from DC to DC converters like Solar Edge's module level DC equipment. I just want to go back to doing solar designs and installations, and quit acting like an attorney parsing every word of this confusing code language. -- Ray Walters Remote Solar 303 505-8760 _______________________________________________ List sponsored by Redwood Alliance List Address: [email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm> Check out or update participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://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
