Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Ryan Mayfield]

William,

In the article you linked, directly after the image you included most
recently,  John Wiles states "Unfortunately, we do not have a definition of
“PV system” in the Code."

I would have to disagree there. Article 100, Definitions includes:
"Photovoltaic (PV) System. The total components and sub-system that, in
combination, convert solar energy into electric energy suitable for
connection to a utilization load."

In the scenario you present, there is an existing PV system on the premises
interconnected to a panel. You are proposing to add a second PV system that
is independent from the first, that will interconnect in a separate panel.
So you in fact, have two PV systems on the premises, allowed by 690.4, and
each will have "the source interconnection of one or more inverters
installed in one system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker."

The second system does not rely on the first to convert solar energy to
electrical energy so you will supply a singular circuit breaker for the
interconnection of each system.

Ryan

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Miller 
wrote:

> Larry, Wrenches:
>
>
>
> I appreciate your questions and comments.  I think there is a broader
> question here:  How do we differentiate between a perceived intent of the
> Code authors versus the actual language they provide in the Code?
>
>
>
> Many members of this forum have commented on the forum and to me off-line
> about the “intent” of the section.  I find these discussions have academic
> value only.  I could pretend to know what the intent of the framers of the
> code section, but how do I prove that intent to a plan checker?
>
>
>
> Here in the real world we all must deal with building officials who know
> how to read and can choose to apply that which is in black and white.
> Furthermore, building officials often refer to trade articles when
> justifying rulings—articles written by those perceived to be
> knowledgeable.  As an example, referring back to the single point of
> connection discussion, the interpretation for the requirement for a single
> point is not mine alone.  This article
> <https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/load-side-pv-connections/>
> in the IAEI newsletter agrees with the single-point interpretation.
> Articles like this makes it more difficult to argue that I know the
> “intent”.  See excerpt below for a clear reading of the language:
>
>
>
> This section has been revised to specifically require that multiple
> inverters in a single PV system shall be connected to the existing premises
> wiring system at a *single* dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
> disconnecting means. This section no longer allows multiple connections to
> a load center or panelboard where there are multiple inverters involved.
> Multiple inverters must first be combined in an AC combining panel and the
> output of that panelboard is then connected to the single point of
> connection in the distribution equipment through one circuit breaker or
> fusible disconnecting means. See diagram 1.
>
>  [image: https://iaeimagazine.org/images/2014_01/14a_WilesFig1.jpg]
>
> So I ask this forum: What evidence, other than the language in the 2017
> code, can you offer me to take to my local building department that will
> prove to them that under the 2014 NEC the NFPA did not mean what they wrote
> in section 705.12(D)(1)?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> William Miller
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Starlight Solar Power Systems [mailto:la...@starlightsolar.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 9:22 AM
> *To:* will...@millersolar.com; RE-wrenches
> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters
>
>
>
> William,
>
>
>
> It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended meaning
> of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate “systems”, they
> should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point does a “system” begin
> and end? PV modules to the disconnect? ...to the load panel? ...to the
> service entrance?
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> August:
>
>
>
> The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the
> following:
>
>
>
> (*1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source*
>
> *interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one*
>
> *system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible*
>
> *disconnecting means.*
>
>
>
> Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), and
> “at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular).  This makes it obvious
> to me that the language says that the outputs of 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Christopher Warfel]

The original question was w/r to:**/The source interconnection of one or 
more inverters installed in one system shall be made at a dedicated 
circuit breaker or fusible disconnecting means./


and whether one disconnect could be used to disconnect multiple 
inverters. The inference as I read it was that there was no other 
disconnect means for the inverters in question.


If you use an AC combiner upstream of the disconnecting means with 
individual OCPDs as required, then you have your individual 
disconnection and that is required and has been practiced for many code 
cycles. A circuit breaker OCPD is a code compliant disconnecting means. 
I cannot imagine anyone using an AC combiner method and not using OCPDc. 
Using a disconnecting means to then disconnect downstream AFTER an AC 
combiner is of course allowed. Chris Warfel


/
/

On 2/27/2019 1:48 PM, William Miller wrote:


Chris:

The 2014 code would require individual disconnecting means prior to 
aggregation, i.e. an AC combiner.  Therefore your scenario would not 
exist.


Wm

*From:*RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
<mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org>] *On Behalf Of 
*Christopher Warfel

*Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:43 AM
*To:* re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
<mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>

*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

I know I keep popping up on this, but 2014 makes no sense if it is 
saying to connect multiple inverters to one disconnect. It would be 
difficult and dangerous to take one out of service for any reason 
including replacement. I would that that you'd have to shut down all 
the inverters just to replace one. Some of the large 
commercial/industrial/utility systems have hundreds of inverters and 
there is no way they would install a system to this interpretation of 
the NEC.


On 2/27/2019 12:22 PM, Starlight Solar Power Systems wrote:

William,

It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended
meaning of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate
“systems”, they should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what
point does a “system” begin and end? PV modules to the disconnect?
...to the load panel? ...to the service entrance?

Larry

On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller
mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:

August:

The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the
following:

(/1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source/

/interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one/

/system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible/

/disconnecting means./

Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…”
(singular), and “at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again
singular).  This makes it obvious to me that the language says
that the outputs of multiple inverters need to be aggregated and
connected via_one_OCPD.  I think the other wrenches missed this point.

Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014
code with that of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase
“Each source…” in the 2017 code completely changes the meaning. 
Some AHJs will look to future code versions for clarity even if
they are not yet adopted.  I think this is a good thing, and I
really appreciate you bringing up the new language.

The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from
the 2014 code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section
to allow the more liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017
code reflects.  I find it best to contact the plan checker
directly, which I did, and we are approved for multiple OCPDs.  By
the way, I think that article is well written and I have book
marked it.

I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107,
or what the thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by
the language, not the intent.

Thank you as well to all who responded.

William Miller

*From:*August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com
<mailto:aug...@luminalt.com>]
*Sent:*Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
*To:*William Miller; RE-wrenches
*Subject:*Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

Hi William -

In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for
guidance:



I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers
in your main.

August

Luminalt

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller
mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:

Friends:

I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a
home that has an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied
system.  The owner wants to add another 10 kW of grid-tied
PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of connection. 
Specifically sectio

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[August Goers]

Hi Chris,

For string inverters, the OCPD is sized per 705.60(B) which will specify
the minimum breaker rating you need. Then, you can't go above the maximum
OCPD specified by the manufacturer. For most string inverters that I can
think of, this limits us to one breaker (OCPD) per inverter. I recall
bumping into a string inverter without a maximum specificed OCPD rating,
but I don't recall which one at the moment.

However, for microinverter based systems it is standard to install multiple
inverters on one branch circuit with one OCPD.

August


On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:43 AM Christopher Warfel <
cwar...@entech-engineering.com> wrote:

> I know I keep popping up on this, but 2014 makes no sense if it is saying
> to connect multiple inverters to one disconnect. It would be difficult and
> dangerous to take one out of service for any reason including replacement.
> I would that that you'd have to shut down all the inverters just to replace
> one. Some of the large commercial/industrial/utility systems have hundreds
> of inverters and there is no way they would install a system to this
> interpretation of the NEC.
> On 2/27/2019 12:22 PM, Starlight Solar Power Systems wrote:
>
> William,
>
> It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended meaning
> of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate “systems”, they
> should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point does a “system” begin
> and end? PV modules to the disconnect? ...to the load panel? ...to the
> service entrance?
>
> Larry
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller 
> wrote:
>
> August:
>
>
> The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the
> following:
>
>
> (*1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source*
> *interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one*
> *system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible*
> *disconnecting means.*
>
>
> Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), and
> “at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular).  This makes it obvious
> to me that the language says that the outputs of multiple inverters need to
> be aggregated and connected via *one* OCPD.  I think the other wrenches
> missed this point.
>
>
> Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014 code with
> that of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase “Each source…” in
> the 2017 code completely changes the meaning.  Some AHJs will look to
> future code versions for clarity even if they are not yet adopted.  I think
> this is a good thing, and I really appreciate you bringing up the new
> language.
>
>
> The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from the
> 2014 code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section to allow the
> more liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017 code reflects.  I find
> it best to contact the plan checker directly, which I did, and we are
> approved for multiple OCPDs.  By the way, I think that article is well
> written and I have book marked it.
>
>
> I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107, or what
> the thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by the language, not
> the intent.
>
>
> Thank you as well to all who responded.
>
>
> William Miller
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
> *To:* William Miller; RE-wrenches
> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters
>
>
> Hi William -
>
>
> In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for guidance:
>
>
> 
>
>
> I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers in your
> main.
>
>
> August
> Luminalt
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller 
> wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
>
> I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has
> an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to add
> another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of
> connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:
>
>
> *The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
> system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
> disconnecting means.*
>
>
> So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have
> to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be
> difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different
> sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.
>
>
> This article
> <https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/loa

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[William Miller]

Chris:



The 2014 code would require individual disconnecting means prior to
aggregation, i.e. an AC combiner.  Therefore your scenario would not exist.



Wm





*From:* RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On
Behalf Of *Christopher Warfel
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:43 AM
*To:* re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters



I know I keep popping up on this, but 2014 makes no sense if it is saying
to connect multiple inverters to one disconnect. It would be difficult and
dangerous to take one out of service for any reason including replacement.
I would that that you'd have to shut down all the inverters just to replace
one. Some of the large commercial/industrial/utility systems have hundreds
of inverters and there is no way they would install a system to this
interpretation of the NEC.

On 2/27/2019 12:22 PM, Starlight Solar Power Systems wrote:

William,



It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended meaning
of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate “systems”, they
should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point does a “system” begin
and end? PV modules to the disconnect? ...to the load panel? ...to the
service entrance?



Larry





On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller 
wrote:



August:



The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the
following:



(*1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source*

*interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one*

*system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible*

*disconnecting means.*



Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), and
“at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular).  This makes it obvious
to me that the language says that the outputs of multiple inverters need to
be aggregated and connected via *one* OCPD.  I think the other wrenches
missed this point.



Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014 code with
that of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase “Each source…” in
the 2017 code completely changes the meaning.  Some AHJs will look to
future code versions for clarity even if they are not yet adopted.  I think
this is a good thing, and I really appreciate you bringing up the new
language.



The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from the 2014
code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section to allow the more
liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017 code reflects.  I find it
best to contact the plan checker directly, which I did, and we are approved
for multiple OCPDs.  By the way, I think that article is well written and I
have book marked it.



I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107, or what
the thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by the language, not
the intent.



Thank you as well to all who responded.



William Miller









*From:* August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com]
*Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
*To:* William Miller; RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters



Hi William -



In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for guidance:







I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers in your
main.



August

Luminalt





On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller 
wrote:

Friends:



I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has
an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to add
another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of
connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:



*The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
disconnecting means.*



So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have
to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be
difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different
sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.



This article
<https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/load-side-pv-connections/>
addresses
the question.



I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you might
have in interpreting this section of the code.



Thanks in advance.



William



___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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: RE-wre

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[William Miller]

Larry, Wrenches:



I appreciate your questions and comments.  I think there is a broader
question here:  How do we differentiate between a perceived intent of the
Code authors versus the actual language they provide in the Code?



Many members of this forum have commented on the forum and to me off-line
about the “intent” of the section.  I find these discussions have academic
value only.  I could pretend to know what the intent of the framers of the
code section, but how do I prove that intent to a plan checker?



Here in the real world we all must deal with building officials who know
how to read and can choose to apply that which is in black and white.
Furthermore, building officials often refer to trade articles when
justifying rulings—articles written by those perceived to be
knowledgeable.  As an example, referring back to the single point of
connection discussion, the interpretation for the requirement for a single
point is not mine alone.  This article
<https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/load-side-pv-connections/> in
the IAEI newsletter agrees with the single-point interpretation.  Articles
like this makes it more difficult to argue that I know the “intent”.  See
excerpt below for a clear reading of the language:



This section has been revised to specifically require that multiple
inverters in a single PV system shall be connected to the existing premises
wiring system at a *single* dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
disconnecting means. This section no longer allows multiple connections to
a load center or panelboard where there are multiple inverters involved.
Multiple inverters must first be combined in an AC combining panel and the
output of that panelboard is then connected to the single point of
connection in the distribution equipment through one circuit breaker or
fusible disconnecting means. See diagram 1.

 [image: https://iaeimagazine.org/images/2014_01/14a_WilesFig1.jpg]

So I ask this forum: What evidence, other than the language in the 2017
code, can you offer me to take to my local building department that will
prove to them that under the 2014 NEC the NFPA did not mean what they wrote
in section 705.12(D)(1)?



Thanks in advance.



William Miller





*From:* Starlight Solar Power Systems [mailto:la...@starlightsolar.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 9:22 AM
*To:* will...@millersolar.com; RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters



William,



It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended meaning
of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate “systems”, they
should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point does a “system” begin
and end? PV modules to the disconnect? ...to the load panel? ...to the
service entrance?



Larry





On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller 
wrote:



August:



The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the
following:



(*1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source*

*interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one*

*system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible*

*disconnecting means.*



Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), and
“at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular).  This makes it obvious
to me that the language says that the outputs of multiple inverters need to
be aggregated and connected via *one* OCPD.  I think the other wrenches
missed this point.



Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014 code with
that of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase “Each source…” in
the 2017 code completely changes the meaning.  Some AHJs will look to
future code versions for clarity even if they are not yet adopted.  I think
this is a good thing, and I really appreciate you bringing up the new
language.



The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from the 2014
code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section to allow the more
liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017 code reflects.  I find it
best to contact the plan checker directly, which I did, and we are approved
for multiple OCPDs.  By the way, I think that article is well written and I
have book marked it.



I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107, or what
the thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by the language, not
the intent.



Thank you as well to all who responded.



William Miller









*From:* August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com]
*Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
*To:* William Miller; RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters



Hi William -



In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for guidance:







I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers in your
main.



August

Luminalt





On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller 
wrote:

Friends:



I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has
an ex

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Christopher Warfel]

I know I keep popping up on this, but 2014 makes no sense if it is 
saying to connect multiple inverters to one disconnect. It would be 
difficult and dangerous to take one out of service for any reason 
including replacement. I would that that you'd have to shut down all the 
inverters just to replace one. Some of the large 
commercial/industrial/utility systems have hundreds of inverters and 
there is no way they would install a system to this interpretation of 
the NEC.


On 2/27/2019 12:22 PM, Starlight Solar Power Systems wrote:

William,

It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended 
meaning of “installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate 
“systems”, they should not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point 
does a “system” begin and end? PV modules to the disconnect? ...to the 
load panel? ...to the service entrance?


Larry


On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller <mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:


August:

The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the 
following:


(/1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source/
/interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one/
/system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible/
/disconnecting means./

Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), 
and “at a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular). This makes it 
obvious to me that the language says that the outputs of multiple 
inverters need to be aggregated and connected via_one_OCPD.  I think 
the other wrenches missed this point.


Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014 code 
with that of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase “Each 
source…” in the 2017 code completely changes the meaning.  Some AHJs 
will look to future code versions for clarity even if they are not yet 
adopted.  I think this is a good thing, and I really appreciate you 
bringing up the new language.


The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from the 
2014 code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section to 
allow the more liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017 code 
reflects.  I find it best to contact the plan checker directly, which 
I did, and we are approved for multiple OCPDs.  By the way, I think 
that article is well written and I have book marked it.


I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107, or 
what the thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by the 
language, not the intent.


Thank you as well to all who responded.

William Miller

*From:*August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com 
<mailto:aug...@luminalt.com>]

*Sent:*Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
*To:*William Miller; RE-wrenches
*Subject:*Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

Hi William -

In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for guidance:



I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers in 
your main.


August
Luminalt

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller 
mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:

Friends:

I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home 
that has an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner 
wants to add another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 
705.12, point of connection. Specifically section (D)(1).  That 
section states:


/The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one 
system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible 
disconnecting means./


So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs 
have to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might 
be difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a 
different sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new 
inverter output.


Thisarticle 
<https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/load-side-pv-connections/>addresses 
the question.


I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you 
might have in interpreting this section of the code.


Thanks in advance.

William

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
<mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>


Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
<mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>


Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/option

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Starlight Solar Power Systems]

William,

It seems this question needs to be addressed: What is the intended meaning of 
“installed in one system” in 2014? If you have separate “systems”, they should 
not be governed by 705.12. So, at what point does a “system” begin and end? PV 
modules to the disconnect? ...to the load panel? ...to the service entrance?

Larry


On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:42 PM, William Miller  wrote:

August:
 
The 2014 code, which the AHJ for this project is using, states the following:
 
(1) Dedicated Overcurrent and Disconnect. The source
interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
disconnecting means.
 
Note that the language says, “The source interconnection…” (singular), and “at 
a dedicated circuit breaker…”(again singular).  This makes it obvious to me 
that the language says that the outputs of multiple inverters need to be 
aggregated and connected via one OCPD.  I think the other wrenches missed this 
point.
 
Your input is valuable by contrasting the language of the 2014 code with that 
of the 2017 version.  The inclusion of the phrase “Each source…” in the 2017 
code completely changes the meaning.  Some AHJs will look to future code 
versions for clarity even if they are not yet adopted.  I think this is a good 
thing, and I really appreciate you bringing up the new language.
 
The article from AEIA magazine ratifies the conclusion I drew from the 2014 
code.  Fortunately the AHJ is misinterpreting the section to allow the more 
liberal interpretation, the one that the 2017 code reflects.  I find it best to 
contact the plan checker directly, which I did, and we are approved for 
multiple OCPDs.  By the way, I think that article is well written and I have 
book marked it.
 
I don’t know if the 2014 language was a mistake corrected in 2107, or what the 
thinking was of the authors.  Regardless, we live by the language, not the 
intent.
 
Thank you as well to all who responded.
 
William Miller
 
 
 
 
From: August Goers [mailto:aug...@luminalt.com <mailto:aug...@luminalt.com>] 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:07 AM
To: William Miller; RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters
 
Hi William - 
 
In this case, it is helpful to look forward to the 2017 NEC for guidance:
 

 
I believe it's perfectly fine to have multiple inverter breakers in your main.
 
August
Luminalt
 
 
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM William Miller mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:
> Friends:
>  
> I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has an 
> existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to add 
> another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of 
> connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states: 
>  
> The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one system 
> shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible disconnecting means.
>  
> So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have to 
> be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be difficult to 
> do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different sub-panel than the 
> one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.
>  
> This article 
> <https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/01/16/load-side-pv-connections/> 
> addresses the question.
>  
> I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you might 
> have in interpreting this section of the code.
>  
> Thanks in advance.
>  
> William
>  
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
> <mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>
> 
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org 
> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>
> 
> List-Archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html 
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
<mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org 
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maill

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Christopher Warfel]

Yes, microinverters and now I would think other typologies will be 
included with module level disconnects becoming more common and I guess 
required. So, as long as you can disconnect each non microinverter 
individually, and microinverter strings by one disconnect, you should 
meeting the intent.  Labeling is key too. I still think that this was a 
big error and the stated intention of making rooftop pv safer has not 
been achieved.  The wheel fell off of this "safety improvement". 
Technology is catching up though. Anyone on a roof better assume the 
array is live until proven otherwise no matter what installation type it 
is. Chris


On 2/25/2019 5:45 PM, Rebekah Hren wrote:
I should follow up to say that yes Chris is correct - each inverter 
does require its own equipment disconnects (AC and DC) per 690.15, but 
those can be connectors, like for Enphase, or any number of other 
things, as detailed in 690.15. If you try to keep system and equipment 
disconnect rules separate in your mind, I think it helps - although of 
course the inverter AC disconnect for a string inverter will often 
also be serving as the system disconnect, so there is a lot of overlap.



On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:39 PM Rebekah Hren > wrote:


Hi Chris and William
There was certainly no intention to mandate that all inverters
connect to one OCPD/disconnect.But 705.12(B)(1) in 2017 clarifies
that systems like Enphase could have multiple inverters on one
breaker, certainly not  that all inverters in a building have to
be on breaker.

If an AHJ raises this issue the answer is as follows:

A single inverter can be called a single PV system  - see the
diagrams in 690.1(b). A building can have multiple PV systems per
690.4(D).

Each PV system can have no more than 6 system disconnect switches
per 690.13(D). Circuit breakers are allowed as PV system
disconnects - 690.13(F)(1).

There is no limit to the number of PV systems allowed on a building.

Therefore, each inverter can be connected to its own breaker/disco
for that PV system.


A few further comments :

A single PV system can have a single inverter, or multiple
inverters. It is up to you to define the system and the PV system
disconnect(s) associated with it.

OR multiple inverters (power sources) can be connected to a single
OCPD/disco up to the manufacturer's maximum OCPD limit, per
705.12(B)(1).

OR multiple (let's say 10) inverters in a single system can each
have their own OCPD/disco and ONE master PV system disconnect for
all 10 inverters to follow the fules of 690.13(D).


Lots of options, all allowed!


Best,

Rebekah

Principal, CMP-4


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:31 PM Christopher Warfel
mailto:cwar...@entech-engineering.com>> wrote:

Just reading more slowly, each inverter has to be on its on
separate disconnect means. You cannot put multiple inverters
on the same disconnecting means unless there are individual
disconnecting means upstream.

On 2/25/2019 10:53 AM, William Miller wrote:


Friends:

I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a
home that has an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied
system.  The owner wants to add another 10 kW of grid-tied
PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of connection.
Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:

/The source interconnection of one or more inverters
installed in one system shall be made at a dedicated circuit
breaker or fusible disconnecting means./

So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the
outputs have to be aggregated to connect via one circuit
breaker?  This might be difficult to do as the exiting
inverter is connected via a different sub-panel than the one
that is planned to receive the new inverter output.

This article

addresses the question.

I would be very grateful if any of you can share any
experience you might have in interpreting this section of the
code.

Thanks in advance.

William


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org  


Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org


List-Archive:http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  


Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Rebekah Hren]

I should follow up to say that yes Chris is correct - each inverter does
require its own equipment disconnects (AC and DC) per 690.15, but those can
be connectors, like for Enphase, or any number of other things, as detailed
in 690.15. If you try to keep system and equipment disconnect rules
separate in your mind, I think it helps - although of course the inverter
AC disconnect for a string inverter will often also be serving as the
system disconnect, so there is a lot of overlap.


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:39 PM Rebekah Hren  wrote:

> Hi Chris and William
>  There was certainly no intention to mandate that all inverters connect
> to one OCPD/disconnect.But 705.12(B)(1) in 2017 clarifies that systems like
> Enphase could have multiple inverters on one breaker, certainly not  that
> all inverters in a building have to be on breaker.
>
>
>
> If an AHJ raises this issue the answer is as follows:
>
>
>
> A single inverter can be called a single PV system  - see the diagrams in
> 690.1(b). A building can have multiple PV systems per 690.4(D).
>
> Each PV system can have no more than 6 system disconnect switches per
> 690.13(D). Circuit breakers are allowed as PV system disconnects -
> 690.13(F)(1).
>
> There is no limit to the number of PV systems allowed on a building.
>
>
>
> Therefore, each inverter can be connected to its own breaker/disco for
> that PV system.
>
>
> A few further comments :
>
> A single PV system can have a single inverter, or multiple inverters. It
> is up to you to define the system and the PV system disconnect(s)
> associated with it.
>
> OR multiple inverters (power sources) can be connected to a single
> OCPD/disco up to the manufacturer's maximum OCPD limit, per 705.12(B)(1).
>
> OR multiple (let's say 10) inverters in a single system can each have
> their own OCPD/disco and ONE master PV system disconnect for all 10
> inverters to follow the fules of 690.13(D).
>
>
> Lots of options, all allowed!
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rebekah
>
> Principal, CMP-4
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:31 PM Christopher Warfel <
> cwar...@entech-engineering.com> wrote:
>
>> Just reading more slowly, each inverter has to be on its on separate
>> disconnect means. You cannot put multiple inverters on the same
>> disconnecting means unless there are individual disconnecting means
>> upstream.
>> On 2/25/2019 10:53 AM, William Miller wrote:
>>
>> Friends:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that
>> has an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to
>> add another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of
>> connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:
>>
>>
>>
>> *The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
>> system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
>> disconnecting means.*
>>
>>
>>
>> So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have
>> to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be
>> difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different
>> sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.
>>
>>
>>
>> This article
>> 
>> addresses the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you might
>> have in interpreting this section of the code.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>>
>> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> Change listserver email address & 
>> settings:http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List-Archive: 
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>>
>> List rules & etiquette:www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>
>> Check out or update participant bios:www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> --
>>  Christopher Warfel
>>  ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
>> PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
>> 401-466-8978
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>>
>> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> Change listserver email address & settings:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List-Archive:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>>
>> List rules & etiquette:
>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>
>> Check out or update participant bios:
>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Tel: 336.266.8800
> NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ 091209-85
> NC Licensed Electrical Contractor
>


-- 
Tel: 336.266.8800
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ 091209-85

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Rebekah Hren]

Hi Chris and William
 There was certainly no intention to mandate that all inverters connect to
one OCPD/disconnect.But 705.12(B)(1) in 2017 clarifies that systems like
Enphase could have multiple inverters on one breaker, certainly not  that
all inverters in a building have to be on breaker.



If an AHJ raises this issue the answer is as follows:



A single inverter can be called a single PV system  - see the diagrams in
690.1(b). A building can have multiple PV systems per 690.4(D).

Each PV system can have no more than 6 system disconnect switches per
690.13(D). Circuit breakers are allowed as PV system disconnects -
690.13(F)(1).

There is no limit to the number of PV systems allowed on a building.



Therefore, each inverter can be connected to its own breaker/disco for that
PV system.


A few further comments :

A single PV system can have a single inverter, or multiple inverters. It is
up to you to define the system and the PV system disconnect(s) associated
with it.

OR multiple inverters (power sources) can be connected to a single
OCPD/disco up to the manufacturer's maximum OCPD limit, per 705.12(B)(1).

OR multiple (let's say 10) inverters in a single system can each have their
own OCPD/disco and ONE master PV system disconnect for all 10 inverters to
follow the fules of 690.13(D).


Lots of options, all allowed!


Best,

Rebekah

Principal, CMP-4

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:31 PM Christopher Warfel <
cwar...@entech-engineering.com> wrote:

> Just reading more slowly, each inverter has to be on its on separate
> disconnect means. You cannot put multiple inverters on the same
> disconnecting means unless there are individual disconnecting means
> upstream.
> On 2/25/2019 10:53 AM, William Miller wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
>
>
> I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has
> an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to add
> another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of
> connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:
>
>
>
> *The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
> system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
> disconnecting means.*
>
>
>
> So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have
> to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be
> difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different
> sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.
>
>
>
> This article
> 
> addresses the question.
>
>
>
> I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you might
> have in interpreting this section of the code.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> William
>
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & 
> settings:http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>
> List rules & etiquette:www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
> --
>  Christopher Warfel
>  ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
> PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
> 401-466-8978
> 
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>

-- 
Tel: 336.266.8800
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ 091209-85
NC Licensed Electrical Contractor
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Christopher Warfel]

Just reading more slowly, each inverter has to be on its on separate 
disconnect means. You cannot put multiple inverters on the same 
disconnecting means unless there are individual disconnecting means 
upstream.


On 2/25/2019 10:53 AM, William Miller wrote:


Friends:

I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that 
has an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants 
to add another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, 
point of connection. Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:


/The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one 
system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible 
disconnecting means./


So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs 
have to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might 
be difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a 
different sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new 
inverter output.


This article 
 
addresses the question.


I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you 
might have in interpreting this section of the code.


Thanks in advance.

William


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org


--
            Christopher Warfel
                 ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
                                401-466-8978



___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters

[Dave Tedeyan]

Here in upstate NY, we have certainly had multiple inverter breakers land
in the main panel. In a situation like yours, we have also left the old
system as a load side connection, and then turned the new system in to a
supply side connection so that the bus bar in the main panel is not
overloaded. No inspectors here seem to care as long as the labeling shows
what is happening. Although we are also fortunate that most inspectors
around here will not make us fix old work as long as we did not touch it
and it presents no safety hazard.

Cheers,
Dave

*Dave Tedeyan, PE*
Senior Engineer | Taitem Engineering, PC

10 Verizon Lane | Lansing, NY 14882
o. *607.930.3481* x6  f. 607.277.2119
www.taitem.com

Solar • Sustainability • Energy • Design
B-Corporation Best for the World 2018 Honoree


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:42 AM William Miller 
wrote:

> Friends:
>
>
>
> I have an NEC code question on an upcoming project.  It is a home that has
> an existing 8 kW ground-mounted grid-tied system.  The owner wants to add
> another 10 kW of grid-tied PV.  My question is about 705.12, point of
> connection.  Specifically section (D)(1).  That section states:
>
>
>
> *The source interconnection of one or more inverters installed in one
> system shall be made at a dedicated circuit breaker or fusible
> disconnecting means.*
>
>
>
> So if there are going to be two inverters on premise, do the outputs have
> to be aggregated to connect via one circuit breaker?  This might be
> difficult to do as the exiting inverter is connected via a different
> sub-panel than the one that is planned to receive the new inverter output.
>
>
>
> This article
> 
> addresses the question.
>
>
>
> I would be very grateful if any of you can share any experience you might
> have in interpreting this section of the code.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> William
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters through the same disconnect

[Jerry Shafer]

Wrenches
First is this a three phase install or single phase using a three phase to
be the disco. If we have an install with more than one inverter not
including enphase, we always have a sub panel to bring each inverter
together and protect each inverter, then it exits to a disconnect fusable
if a tap or non fuse if connecting to a panel. If this is three phase it
would be basicly the same idea just all three phase components. With
enphase it would be strings of up to the max acting the same as one
inverter and that would also go through the sub panel.
Jerry

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 7:26 AM Advanced Energy Solutions 
wrote:

> I ran 2 inverters through the same 3 blade (using 2 blades with one leg of
> each inverter going though) disconnect but the utility engineer wants me to
> have a disconnect for each inverter.
>
> I can't find the code that says that is allowed
>
> --
> I invite you to visit our showroom at 1804 Supply Road Carterville IL.
>
> #GetEnergized w/Renewable Energy #GoSolar, PEACE>
> Aur J Beck,
>
> PV Installation Professional™ certification #032611-24
> PV Technical Sales Professional™ PVTS032412-6
> chief tech of Energy Network (Green Geek Squad*™ *)
> Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc
> (618) 893-1717 | (800) 229-0453  | www.AESsolar.com
>  | t...@aessolar.com 
>
> We Empower YOU to Get Energized!
>
> Why choose us:
> Installing since 1999
>
> PV Installation Professional™ certification #032611-24
> PV Technical Sales Professional™ PVTS032412-6
> We only do solar so we are not doing this part time
> Our chief tech has lived off grid for 18 years
> We have designed and worked on tiny off grid systems all the way up to
> 100kW systems
> We have a strong focus on education so we try to set up systems to be
> showcased
> We design and install systems to last the full 25 year warranty of the
> modules
>
> Be an Energy Patriot
>
> Living on Earth is Expensive, but it does include a FREE trip around the
> Sun!
>
> Oil Addicts Anonymous International (a real 12 step program)
> www.IamanOilAddict.org 
>
> This communication is the property of Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc
> and is intended only for use by the recipient identified. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> and delete the original communication. Any use of this message without the
> Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc's consent is prohibited.
> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Multiple inverters through the same disconnect

[Darryl Thayer]

The first thought I have is the inverters have a maximum input current
rating if you parallel then
you need overcurrent protective device downstream from the paralleling
disconnect.  Also PV systems 690.13
must disconnect all conductors from all sources of power.
I agree your solution appears to be correct.  multiple inverters on a
single disconnect happen with microinverters.

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:26 AM Advanced Energy Solutions 
wrote:

> I ran 2 inverters through the same 3 blade (using 2 blades with one leg of
> each inverter going though) disconnect but the utility engineer wants me to
> have a disconnect for each inverter.
>
> I can't find the code that says that is allowed
>
> --
> I invite you to visit our showroom at 1804 Supply Road Carterville IL.
>
> #GetEnergized w/Renewable Energy #GoSolar, PEACE>
> Aur J Beck,
>
> PV Installation Professional™ certification #032611-24
> PV Technical Sales Professional™ PVTS032412-6
> chief tech of Energy Network (Green Geek Squad*™ *)
> Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc
> (618) 893-1717 | (800) 229-0453  | www.AESsolar.com
>  | t...@aessolar.com 
>
> We Empower YOU to Get Energized!
>
> Why choose us:
> Installing since 1999
>
> PV Installation Professional™ certification #032611-24
> PV Technical Sales Professional™ PVTS032412-6
> We only do solar so we are not doing this part time
> Our chief tech has lived off grid for 18 years
> We have designed and worked on tiny off grid systems all the way up to
> 100kW systems
> We have a strong focus on education so we try to set up systems to be
> showcased
> We design and install systems to last the full 25 year warranty of the
> modules
>
> Be an Energy Patriot
>
> Living on Earth is Expensive, but it does include a FREE trip around the
> Sun!
>
> Oil Addicts Anonymous International (a real 12 step program)
> www.IamanOilAddict.org 
>
> This communication is the property of Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc
> and is intended only for use by the recipient identified. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> and delete the original communication. Any use of this message without the
> Advanced Energy Solutions Group, Inc's consent is prohibited.
> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ___
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/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: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org