[RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Wrenches, Matt Paiss is wanted to chime in here. He's a member of the Code-Making Panel No. 4 Firefighter Safety Task Group, as well as SEIA's PV Industry Forum. Since he can't post to the list, I am sharing his comments with the group: Drake, After reading your initial comments, I think you have nailed both the intent of this code section as well as the benefits. But in reading your second posting, I felt it important to write you. As one of the representatives from the Fire Service that drafted 690.12, I can tell you that while there is always room for improvement in language, the goal is to have PV that can not start a fire. As I am not a wrench I can not post to the list (feel free to share any of my comments here if you wish), but I would like to chime in on this conversation. Your assertion that ALECs are targeting the PV industry is not taking place in this process. There are many hard-working individuals from the PV industry, electrical inspectors, and the fire service working together to keep PV safe and secure for many years to come. I for one have both PV and thermal on my home. While you are correct that no fire fighter fatalities have resulted from a PV system shock, the goal is to prevent the first. One problem is that the PV industry has not adequately addressed the arc and ground fault problems in the US. Simply put, many rooftop systems are not NEC compliant; they can not detect and interrupt all faults. This has unfortunately resulted in far too many fires. The many additions changes to sec 690 in the 2014 cycle will go far in achieving a much safer system. The fire service is becoming increasingly aware, educated, and involved in the code process for PV safety. It should be clear that the goal for all parties is a safe electrical product. There is no secret agenda to pull the rug out from under solar. To those that are concerned with the imbedded cost increases, please take a longer view than your current FY. The systems that fire fighters respond to may be many years old, but in reality most of the fires have occurred on new systems. We will respond to older systems over time, and some buildings will be lost due to concern over the inability to isolate power down to a safe level. As I teach firefighters about electrical safety, many express both an interest in PV as well as concern that it should be possible to shut a system down in the event of an emergency either manually, or as a result of a fault. Thank you, Matt CA Matthew Paiss, E19B Bureau of Field Operations San Jose Fire Department 1661 Senter Rd San Jose, CA 95113 (831) 566-3057 c BTW: the stakeholders who developed the consensus language in 690.12 are listed in the NEC 2014 Report on Comments: This comment is the result of a consensus process established among three groups of stakeholders: 1) CMP4 Firefighter SafetyTask Group; 2) SEIA Codes and Standards Working Group; and 3) PV Industry Forum. Participants in these groups included the following individuals: CMP4 Firefighter Safety Task Group 1. Ward Bower, CMP4 representing SEIA 2. Bill Brooks, CMP4 representing SEIA and Chair of Task Group 3. Bob Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts 4. Mark Earley, Secretary, NFPA 5. Bob James, UL 6. Matt Paiss, City of San Jose Fire Department 7. Jim Rogers, CMP4 representing IAEI 8. Todd Stafford, CMP4 representing IBEW 9. Ronnie Toomer, Chair of CMP4 10. Peter Willse, Global Asset Protection Services SEIA Codes and Standards Working Group 1. Mark Albers, SunPower 2. Mark Baldassari, Enphase Energy 3. Ward Bower, SEIA 4. Bill Brooks, Brooks Engineering/SEIA 5. Joe Cain, Chair of SEIA Codes and Standards Working Group 6. Keith Davidson, SunTech 7. Darrel Higgs, Dow Solar 8. Lee Kraemer, First Solar 9. Carl Lenox, SunPower 10. Charles Luebke, Eaton 11. Martin Mesmer, E.ON 12. Steve Pisklak, Dow Solar13. Robert Rynar, First Solar 14. Michael Schenck, First Solar 15. John Smirnow, SEIA 16. Kris VanDerzee, First Solar 17. Leo Wu, SolarCity 18. Tilak Gopalarathnam, REFUsol Incorporated PV Industry Forum 1. Mark Albers, SunPower 2. Greg Ball, DNV 3. Bill Brooks, Brooks Engineering, lead for 690.12 4. Mark Baldassari, Enphase Energy 5. Ward Bower, SEIA 6. Michael Coddington, NREL 7. Marv Dargatz, SolarEdge 8. Chris Flueckiger. UL 9. Joerg Grosshennig, SMA 10. Darrel Higgs, Dow Solar 11. Dan Lepinski, Exeltech 12. Carl Lenox, SunPower 13. Charles Luebke, Eaton 14. Matt Paiss, City of San Jose Fire Department 15. Steve Pisklak, Dow Solar 16. Jim Rogers, Town of Oak Bluffs 17. Jon Sharp, Ampt 18. Bhima Sheridan, SolarCity 19. John Smirnow, SEIA 20. Holly Thomas, U.S. Dept. of Energy 21. Phil Undercuffler, Outback Power 22. John Wiles, NMSU, Secretary of PV Industry Forum 23. Leo Wu, SolarCity 24. Tim Zgonena, UL On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org
Re: [RE-wrenches] Corrugated roof brackets
Jeremy: We used them on one job and did not favor them for these reasons: 1. Don't like having the penetrations in the valleys 2. The adhesive is fragile and either peels off or significant amounts wrap around the drill or fasteners 3. The threaded connections felt fragile and I recall a few stripped The next job we used Snapnrack corrugated roof brackets and were very pleased. http://www.snapnrack.com/series-500-metal-roof-mount-system William -Original Message- From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of All Solar, Inc. Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:37 PM To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Subject: [RE-wrenches] Corrugated roof brackets Can anyone comment on the S-5! CorruBracket? Any other recommendations or comments appreciated. Jeremy Rodriguez, President All Solar, Inc. 1463 M Penrose Colorado 81240 719-372-3808 office 719-372-3804 fax http://www.asolarelectric.com www.asolarelectric.com Sent by Jeremy's iPhone. Sorry for typos and shorthand! ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change 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://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules etiquette: http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: http://www.members.re-wrenches.org www.members.re-wrenches.org - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3462 / Virus Database: 3681/7027 - Release Date: 01/23/14 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] Temperature Compensation calcs for wire
Dave: Thanks for this post, although in order to completely understand, it I sacrificed a significant amount of time working up a spreadsheet and running various scenarios. My philosophy is that this will pay off in the long run. I always create a spreadsheet so I can figure something out once and use it always. When analyzing these codes, I was wondering which table to use: table 310.15(B)(2)(a) or table 310.15(B)(2)(b), and why? The values are significantly different. For example at 62°C the values are 0.65 and 0.71, respectively. I deduced that they must be used in conjunction with ampacity values from the correct 310.15(16) through (20) tables in regards to ambient temperature. I noted that for THWN the later tables (40°) do not go below 8AWG, so I figure I need to stick with 30° tables. Is this correct? Lastly, has anyone used the 310.15(C) formula for calculating the values. This should not be that hard. What is considered Engineering Supervision? Thanks again. William -Original Message- From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Dave Click Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:32 PM To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Temperature Compensation calcs for wire William- Yes, you can use the 90C column for ampacity adjustment when using 90C wire, per the awkward 110.14(C)- Conductors with temperature ratings higher than specified for terminations shall be permitted to be used for ampacity adjustment, correction, or both. Assuming copper wiring and the NEC '11 T310.15(B)(16): Let's say you have a 40A breaker with a 75C terminal rating and you're looking to land THWN-2 on it. Since the terminal has a 75C rating, you need to make sure that this terminal rating is rated for at least 40A in the 75C column. Since a 75C terminal with a #10 can only handle 35A, you'd have to go to a #8 to get a rating of at least 40A-- in this case, a #8/75C can handle 50A. So why install 90C-rated conductors at all? When using 90C conductors you can use the 90C ampacity column to apply your derate factors. Let's say your #8 conductor (selected above) is in 50C ambient with 4 conductors in the raceway. If using #8 THWN, use 75C columns: 50A x 0.75 (T310.15(B)(2)(a)) x 0.8 = 30A That's too small for a 40A breaker, so you're stuck with a #6: 65A x 0.75 x 0.8 = 39A (OK) IF using #8 THWN-2, can use 90C columns: 55A x 0.82 x 0.8 = 36A (OK per 240.4(B)) And I'll beat Mr. Brearley to posting a relevant SolarPro article: http://solarprofessional.com/articles/design-installation/code-compliant-con ductor-sizing?v=disable_pagination DKC On 2014/1/22, 19:32, William Miller wrote: Friends: I try to be rigorous in application of NEC codes to everything I do, including wire sizing. I understand that even though I am using conductors rated at 90°C, the breakers I use have terminals rated at 75°C so when deriving the values for ampacity for a given gauge from the tables, I have to use the 75°C column. What is not clear, however, is which column I use when applying temperature derating. Table 315(B)(2)(b) has a column for 75 and a column for 90. I am using 90° wire. The values for 90° are much more generous than the 75° values and I would like to use them. Which is correct? As always, thanks to everyone on this list for all of the help and advice. William Gradient Cap Lic 773985 millersolar.com http://www.millersolar.com/ 805-438-5600 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3462 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3462 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change email address settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive:
[RE-wrenches] astropower panels
If anyone has any Astropower panels, AP-110 or AP-120, hiding somewhere pls contact me off-list. Kirk Herander VT Solar, LLC dba Vermont Solar Engineering NABCEPTM Certified Inaugural Certificant NYSERDA-eligible Installer VT RE Incentive Program Partner 802.863.1202 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Here is the email that I sent to Matt Paiss in response to his contact with me. Matt, Thanks for your email. I was in the midst of answering it yesterday when my reply disappeared into cyberspace. Maybe it found its way to your mailbox. We agree strongly that PV should be made as safe as possible, and that firefighters need to be educated about these systems. The issue I raise is that the new rule came through with no lead time, no NRTL listed equipment available to satisfy the requirement, and no prescribed way to implement it. Through the work of many, maybe including you, the ruling fortunately was not far more damaging. There is no emergency requiring immediate implementation of a methodology that will create so many problems for the PV industry. The dangers of rooftop PV do not show up on the radar compared to even the use of extension cords; much less traffic deaths and fatalities related to mis-prescribed medicines; and diseases suffered by the general public, caused by the extractive industries. This new code requirement presents a major new issue for the industry to deal with. It is yet another block in the way of solar cost effectiveness, and with it the success ratio of the industry. This requirement has come with no set solution, and will continue to cause considerable financial loss and stress until all the details are eventually worked out. It is the fact that the PV industry has been wounded in this way that makes it seem like an ALEC-supported operation. This assault works well for the group's agenda. ALEC is not a matter of secret agendas; it is very visible, with an extremely well-orchestrated assault on the PV industry. http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/22/largest-power-company-alec-solar/http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/22/largest-power-company-alec-solar/ You may well be right that no committee members were lobbied. You were there and I was not. Nevertheless, I would really like to know who proposed the module level rapid disconnect requirement. Some may be alarmed about PV rooftop systems for good reason, and / or they may have been influenced to consider this relatively safe technology to be a threat. Would it be possible for you to put me in contact with the people who presented this idea, and those who argued passionately for it? If they want to contact me, please forward my contact information to them. Best regards, Drake At 02:11 PM 1/24/2014, you wrote: Wrenches, Matt Paiss is wanted to chime in here. He's a member of the Code-Making Panel No. 4 Firefighter Safety Task Group, as well as SEIA's PV Industry Forum. Since he can't post to the list, I am sharing his comments with the group: Drake, After reading your initial comments, I think you have nailed both the intent of this code section as well as the benefits. But in reading your second posting, I felt it important to write you. As one of the representatives from the Fire Service that drafted 690.12, I can tell you that while there is always room for improvement in language, the goal is to have PV that can not start a fire. As I am not a wrench I can not post to the list (feel free to share any of my comments here if you wish), but I would like to chime in on this conversation. Your assertion that ALECs are targeting the PV industry is not taking place in this process. There are many hard-working individuals from the PV industry, electrical inspectors, and the fire service working together to keep PV safe and secure for many years to come. I for one have both PV and thermal on my home. While you are correct that no fire fighter fatalities have resulted from a PV system shock, the goal is to prevent the first. One problem is that the PV industry has not adequately addressed the arc and ground fault problems in the US. Simply put, many rooftop systems are not NEC compliant; they can not detect and interrupt all faults. This has unfortunately resulted in far too many fires. The many additions changes to sec 690 in the 2014 cycle will go far in achieving a much safer system. The fire service is becoming increasingly aware, educated, and involved in the code process for PV safety. It should be clear that the goal for all parties is a safe electrical product. There is no secret agenda to pull the rug out from under solar. To those that are concerned with the imbedded cost increases, please take a longer view than your current FY. The systems that fire fighters respond to may be many years old, but in reality most of the fires have occurred on new systems. We will respond to older systems over time, and some buildings will be lost due to concern over the inability to isolate power down to a safe level. As I teach firefighters about electrical safety, many express both an interest in PV as well as concern that it should be possible to shut a system down in the event of an emergency either manually, or as a result of a
[RE-wrenches] Static shock
Hi all, Here is a new question. I believe it's static electricity. System: standalone 2 x 44voc 165 watt modules in parallel Powering a pump sq flex( yea installer didn't do it right) dry ground. No batteries or any other power in the area, no LCB or other electronics. Pole mount, dpw in concrete with galvy pole Wires are not attached to pole/ rack in any way It's been very low humidity 5-10%, with 10-20 mph wind No rain totally dry Here is what happened. Person with one hand touched pole and and other hand touched the USE-2 insulated wire from the modules, got way shocked. Checked the wire no cracks etc and again 44voc max Happened a second time, but this time his sleeve brushed the pole while he was moving the wires, again shocked. Again, I think it's static as I have no other explanation. This kind of weather is unknown where I live. I now live in a true desert vs a rain forest and never moved. Thoughts? Thanks Jay Peltz power ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] Corrugated roof brackets
Go look at sunmodo they also have some solutions tell them jerry from affinity sent you, great price point. The are in Washington state check it out On Jan 23, 2014 1:37 PM, All Solar, Inc. allso...@scswifi.net wrote: Can anyone comment on the S-5! CorruBracket? Any other recommendations or comments appreciated. Jeremy Rodriguez, President All Solar, Inc. 1463 M Penrose Colorado 81240 719-372-3808 office 719-372-3804 fax www.asolarelectric.com Sent by Jeremy's iPhone. Sorry for typos and shorthand! ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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 ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 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
