Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown - for multiple arrays
Al, You may find this article and the one referenced to be helpful https://www.purepower.com/blog/nec-690-12-rapid-shutdown-length Best regards, Lloyd Hoffstatter Sunstruck Consulting Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Al Frishman<mailto:evolvedso...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:42 AM To: RE-wrenches<mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown - for multiple arrays Hey Wrenchers, What is your interpretaion regarding NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown of PV Systems on Buildings when dealing with multiple arrays separated by 4 ft paths on flat roofs.For example can one inverter located at the East end of an array be connected to solar panels on both the adjacent array to the inverter and a 2nd or even 3rd array located to the West separated by 4 ft paths? I appreciate your feedback. Al Frishman EvolvedSolar (917) 699-6641 ___ 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-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown - for multiple arrays
Hey Wrenchers, What is your interpretaion regarding NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown of PV Systems on Buildings when dealing with multiple arrays separated by 4 ft paths on flat roofs.For example can one inverter located at the East end of an array be connected to solar panels on both the adjacent array to the inverter and a 2nd or even 3rd array located to the West separated by 4 ft paths? I appreciate your feedback. Al Frishman EvolvedSolar (917) 699-6641 ___ 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] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
(central inverters) is that there is a need to shutdown the capacitor input side of the inverter since that stays energized for 5 minutes or more. The 10 seconds was to provide a means to rapidly discharge the capacitors rather than requiring a relay or tripping device. Doing something other than a relay will require a test laboratory to evaluate the functionguess what?we don’t have a standard yet to evaluate those products. Sounds like you might want to work on that committee. It is more complicated for battery backup systems. Midnite Solar’s birdhouse products are the best I have seen so far to address this concern. Since dc and ac circuits are not differentiated, battery backup systems need to have a shutdown process that works independently of a utility outage for obvious reasons, and it must shutdown both the dc circuits and the backup ac circuits. A separate switch, like the birdhouse, would be necessary that only controls these functions in an emergency situation. Is the language not detailedpossibly. This was done to provide flexibility rather than create problems. Fire departments have been requiring rooftop disconnects for years in California. These disconnects are nearly worthless from a shock prevention point of view since capacitors in the inverter stay charged or there are multiple disconnecting means feeding each other. We have been trying to hold the fire community off of rooftop disconnect requirements so we could work on a solution that actually does what they want it to do. There is a long discussion on this in the appendix of my “Understanding the CalFire Guidelines” document on the SolarABCs website. The 2014 NEC language was a compromise worked out with the solar industry (yes string inverter companies as well) in response to the first version of the proposal which was to require module-level shutdown. This is not module-level shutdown, it is PV output circuit shutdown (combiner box shutdown is another way to look at it). However, the 2017 NEC cycle is this year and there was a lot of talk about requiring module-level shutdown this time around. I hope this helps. I will be writing articles for IAEI journal and other periodicals on this subject since it was a very far-reaching and potentially confusing new requirement in the NEC. Thanks for your interest and let’s keep the constructive dialogue going on the subject. It is time to get involved in the NEC update process again. Bill Brooks. *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey Quackenbush *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:09 AM *To:* RE-wrenches *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Wrenches, There is no guidance in the Code text for where the shutdown should take place. (1) says: Requirements for controlled conductors shall apply only to PV system conductors of more than 1.5m (5') in length inside a building, or more than 3m (10') from a PV array. So, the provisions *apply if* the circuit 10' from the array and 5' inside a building, but no mention is made of where the shutdown actually needs take place in the circuit. In the video Bill Brooks suggests that the shutdown mechanism should also be placed within this 10'/5' boundary but that is just an inference -- nowhere in the text is this actually specified. If that was the intent of the Code committee, then they've done a poor job actually expressing it in English. I'm concerned that some AHJs will interpret this to exclude all central inverter systems (without the addition of cost-inducing secondary DC-DC converters like Tigo) because the combiner or junction box can be many feet from the actual beginning of a home run under the array. Alternately, permissive AHJs could allow this function to be fulfilled anywhere, meaning that the implementation won't meet the intent of the writers. I'm also concerned, as Isaac mentioned, that there are no requirements for how the shutdown be initiated, or that it contains of the accessibility and grouping requirements that are always included for disconnects. I really think this should be treated and categorized as a disconnect requirement, not a circuit requirement, because that is the ultimate function that's intended. I'm surprised none of the inverter manufacturers have chosen to comment here, as this could dramatically impact the sales of central inverters. Jeffrey Quackenbush -- [image: []] http://www.avast.com/ http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
systems (no battery backup), it would be most convenient and cost effective to have a system that initiates the shutdown on loss of utility. In this way, a firefighter can do what they normally do, shut down utility power to the building, and the rapid shutdown would automatically initiate. This does not necessitate an additional disconnecting means for a load-side PV connection. The main breaker could be the initiating device. For a supply-side connection, the NEC already requires that the PV disconnect switch be located adjacent to the service disconnecting means (article 230). The biggest issue with string inverters (central inverters) is that there is a need to shutdown the capacitor input side of the inverter since that stays energized for 5 minutes or more. The 10 seconds was to provide a means to rapidly discharge the capacitors rather than requiring a relay or tripping device. Doing something other than a relay will require a test laboratory to evaluate the functionguess what?we don't have a standard yet to evaluate those products. Sounds like you might want to work on that committee. It is more complicated for battery backup systems. Midnite Solar's birdhouse products are the best I have seen so far to address this concern. Since dc and ac circuits are not differentiated, battery backup systems need to have a shutdown process that works independently of a utility outage for obvious reasons, and it must shutdown both the dc circuits and the backup ac circuits. A separate switch, like the birdhouse, would be necessary that only controls these functions in an emergency situation. Is the language not detailedpossibly. This was done to provide flexibility rather than create problems. Fire departments have been requiring rooftop disconnects for years in California. These disconnects are nearly worthless from a shock prevention point of view since capacitors in the inverter stay charged or there are multiple disconnecting means feeding each other. We have been trying to hold the fire community off of rooftop disconnect requirements so we could work on a solution that actually does what they want it to do. There is a long discussion on this in the appendix of my Understanding the CalFire Guidelines document on the SolarABCs website. The 2014 NEC language was a compromise worked out with the solar industry (yes string inverter companies as well) in response to the first version of the proposal which was to require module-level shutdown. This is not module-level shutdown, it is PV output circuit shutdown (combiner box shutdown is another way to look at it). However, the 2017 NEC cycle is this year and there was a lot of talk about requiring module-level shutdown this time around. I hope this helps. I will be writing articles for IAEI journal and other periodicals on this subject since it was a very far-reaching and potentially confusing new requirement in the NEC. Thanks for your interest and let's keep the constructive dialogue going on the subject. It is time to get involved in the NEC update process again. Bill Brooks. *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey Quackenbush *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:09 AM *To:* RE-wrenches *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Wrenches, There is no guidance in the Code text for where the shutdown should take place. (1) says: Requirements for controlled conductors shall apply only to PV system conductors of more than 1.5m (5') in length inside a building, or more than 3m (10') from a PV array. So, the provisions /apply if/ the circuit 10' from the array and 5' inside a building, but no mention is made of where the shutdown actually needs take place in the circuit. In the video Bill Brooks suggests that the shutdown mechanism should also be placed within this 10'/5' boundary but that is just an inference -- nowhere in the text is this actually specified. If that was the intent of the Code committee, then they've done a poor job actually expressing it in English. I'm concerned that some AHJs will interpret this to exclude all central inverter systems (without the addition of cost-inducing secondary DC-DC converters like Tigo) because the combiner or junction box can be many feet from the actual beginning of a home run under the array. Alternately, permissive AHJs could allow this function to be fulfilled anywhere, meaning that the implementation won't meet the intent of the writers. I'm also concerned, as Isaac mentioned
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Brian, UL1741, Section 64.11 stipulates the discharge time for capacitors at less than five minutes. Though the context of this Section specifically addresses capacitors that are accessible by some aspect of inverter disassembly, it would also be appropriate to extend its applicability to DC terminals across which capacitors are connected and are otherwise accessible by an external means, such as DC conductors. Dan Lepinski On Fri, 1/31/14, Brian Mehalic br...@solarenergy.org wrote: Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Date: Friday, January 31, 2014, 1:52 AM What about the capacitors on the dc side of the inverter? My assumption has been that this capacitance is the reason behind the 690.17(E) labeling requirement. Admittedly I don't understand the discharge capabilities of capacitors, but I've measured their voltage and watched it decay when disconnected from a power source (and heard stories about toss the capacitive-laden ballast to the newbie ha ha...). So the question is, say for a of a roof mounted array and a ground-level string inverter, will additional equipment (either in the inverter or external) be required to isolate the PV/dc circuit conductors from the inverter in order to meet 690.12? Brian Mehalic NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ R031508-59 IREC ISPQ Certified Affiliated Instructor/PV US-0132 PV Curriculum Developer and Instructor Solar Energy International http://www.solarenergy.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Bill Brooks billbroo...@yahoo.com wrote: Brian, The requirement is generic. A listed contactor can meet the requirement. A standard is only necessary for products that want to be innovative in meeting the 30V, 240VA. Killing all power is an option with existing listed equipment. NEC 90.4 does not apply. Bill. ___ 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
What about the capacitors on the dc side of the inverter? My assumption has been that this capacitance is the reason behind the 690.17(E) labeling requirement. Admittedly I don't understand the discharge capabilities of capacitors, but I've measured their voltage and watched it decay when disconnected from a power source (and heard stories about toss the capacitive-laden ballast to the newbie ha ha...). So the question is, say for a of a roof mounted array and a ground-level string inverter, will additional equipment (either in the inverter or external) be required to isolate the PV/dc circuit conductors from the inverter in order to meet 690.12? Brian Mehalic NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional(tm) R031508-59 IREC ISPQ Certified Affiliated Instructor/PV US-0132 PV Curriculum Developer and Instructor Solar Energy International http://www.solarenergy.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Bill Brooks billbroo...@yahoo.com wrote: Brian, The requirement is generic. A listed contactor can meet the requirement. A standard is only necessary for products that want to be innovative in meeting the 30V, 240VA. Killing all power is an option with existing listed equipment. NEC 90.4 does not apply. Bill. *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Mehalic *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:36 PM *To:* RE-wrenches *Cc:* re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle--for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, *SolarPro* magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.orgwrote: *From: *Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org *Subject: **Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown* *Date: *January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST *To: *RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org *Reply-To: *RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin *Athens Electric LLC* *OH License 44810CO License 3773NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 740-448-7328*http://athens-electric.com
[RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 22, 2014 2:16:18 PM CST To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org David, My sincere thanks to all of you who worked to keep the module level disconnect requirement out of the 2014 code cycle. That ruling would have amounted to a knockout punch for string and central inverters on buildings. What was the driving force behind this push for immediate module level disconnection? There has clearly not been a rash of firefighter deaths due to PV systems. Although PV needs to continue evolving safety standards that take into account the concerns of firefighters, there is no crisis that would justify thwarting one of the few growing sectors of our economy. The PV track record has been amazingly good. So far, I've found no accounts of solar related firefighter deaths or injuries. The NFPA statistics show that the highest cause of firefighter death is heart attack. http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012 This push for crippling regulation bears the earmark of ALEC’s extensive and effective war on solar. As you can read in the following links, the massively funded, Koch brothers-linked ALEC is lobbying heavily, on every level, to derail solar. All who are associated with the solar industry need to be aware of this powerful lobbying campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/alec_freeriders_with_solar_panels_must_pay_for_robbing_the_system/ http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.html Is there any way that the solar community can be alerted when threats to our industry are being put before the NEC? Although few contractors have the time or money to walk away from their businesses and attend code writing committees, a substantial number might have the time to make phone calls and send letters or emails to code writers. The solar industry needs a strong lobby of its own. Drake ___ 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
. 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, mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.orgdrake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 22, 2014 2:16:18 PM CST To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org David, My sincere thanks to all of you who worked to keep the module level disconnect requirement out of the 2014 code cycle. That ruling would have amounted to a knockout punch for string and central inverters on buildings. What was the driving force behind this push for immediate module level disconnection? There has clearly not been a rash of firefighter deaths due to PV systems. Although PV needs to continue evolving safety standards that take into account the concerns of firefighters, there is no crisis that would justify thwarting one of the few growing sectors of our economy. The PV track record has been amazingly good. So far, I've found no accounts of solar related firefighter deaths or injuries. The NFPA statistics show that the highest cause of firefighter death is heart attack. http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012 This push for crippling regulation bears the earmark of ALEC's extensive and effective war on solar. As you can read in the following links, the massively funded, Koch brothers-linked ALEC is lobbying heavily, on every level, to derail solar. All who are associated with the solar industry need to be aware of this powerful lobbying campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energyhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/alec_freeriders_with_solar_panels_must_pay_for_robbing_the_system/ http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.htmlhttp://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.html Is there any way that the solar community can be alerted when threats to our industry are being put before the NEC? Although few contractors have the time or money to walk away from their businesses and attend code writing committees
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
David, My sincere thanks to all of you who worked to keep the module level disconnect requirement out of the 2014 code cycle. That ruling would have amounted to a knockout punch for string and central inverters on buildings. What was the driving force behind this push for immediate module level disconnection? There has clearly not been a rash of firefighter deaths due to PV systems. Although PV needs to continue evolving safety standards that take into account the concerns of firefighters, there is no crisis that would justify thwarting one of the few growing sectors of our economy. The PV track record has been amazingly good. So far, I've found no accounts of solar related firefighter deaths or injuries. The NFPA statistics show that the highest cause of firefighter death is heart attack. http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/july-august-2013/features/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2012 This push for crippling regulation bears the earmark of ALECs extensive and effective war on solar. As you can read in the following links, the massively funded, Koch brothers-linked ALEC is lobbying heavily, on every level, to derail solar. All who are associated with the solar industry need to be aware of this powerful lobbying campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energyhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/alec_freeriders_with_solar_panels_must_pay_for_robbing_the_system/ http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.htmlhttp://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/01/alec-gain-an-inside-track-on-colorado-solar-2490132.html Is there any way that the solar community can be alerted when threats to our industry are being put before the NEC? Although few contractors have the time or money to walk away from their businesses and attend code writing committees, a substantial number might have the time to make phone calls and send letters or emails to code writers. The solar industry needs a strong lobby of its own. Drake At 05:11 PM 1/21/2014, you wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cyclefor the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.comdavid.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.orgdrake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.orgre-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
for battery backup systems. Midnite Solars birdhouse products are the best I have seen so far to address this concern. Since dc and ac circuits are not differentiated, battery backup systems need to have a shutdown process that works independently of a utility outage for obvious reasons, and it must shutdown both the dc circuits and the backup ac circuits. A separate switch, like the birdhouse, would be necessary that only controls these functions in an emergency situation. Is the language not detailedpossibly. This was done to provide flexibility rather than create problems. Fire departments have been requiring rooftop disconnects for years in California. These disconnects are nearly worthless from a shock prevention point of view since capacitors in the inverter stay charged or there are multiple disconnecting means feeding each other. We have been trying to hold the fire community off of rooftop disconnect requirements so we could work on a solution that actually does what they want it to do. There is a long discussion on this in the appendix of my Understanding the CalFire Guidelines document on the SolarABCs website. The 2014 NEC language was a compromise worked out with the solar industry (yes string inverter companies as well) in response to the first version of the proposal which was to require module-level shutdown. This is not module-level shutdown, it is PV output circuit shutdown (combiner box shutdown is another way to look at it). However, the 2017 NEC cycle is this year and there was a lot of talk about requiring module-level shutdown this time around. I hope this helps. I will be writing articles for IAEI journal and other periodicals on this subject since it was a very far-reaching and potentially confusing new requirement in the NEC. Thanks for your interest and lets keep the constructive dialogue going on the subject. It is time to get involved in the NEC update process again. Bill Brooks. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Quackenbush Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:09 AM To: RE-wrenches Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Wrenches, There is no guidance in the Code text for where the shutdown should take place. (1) says: Requirements for controlled conductors shall apply only to PV system conductors of more than 1.5m (5') in length inside a building, or more than 3m (10') from a PV array. So, the provisions apply if the circuit 10' from the array and 5' inside a building, but no mention is made of where the shutdown actually needs take place in the circuit. In the video Bill Brooks suggests that the shutdown mechanism should also be placed within this 10'/5' boundary but that is just an inference -- nowhere in the text is this actually specified. If that was the intent of the Code committee, then they've done a poor job actually expressing it in English. I'm concerned that some AHJs will interpret this to exclude all central inverter systems (without the addition of cost-inducing secondary DC-DC converters like Tigo) because the combiner or junction box can be many feet from the actual beginning of a home run under the array. Alternately, permissive AHJs could allow this function to be fulfilled anywhere, meaning that the implementation won't meet the intent of the writers. I'm also concerned, as Isaac mentioned, that there are no requirements for how the shutdown be initiated, or that it contains of the accessibility and grouping requirements that are always included for disconnects. I really think this should be treated and categorized as a disconnect requirement, not a circuit requirement, because that is the ultimate function that's intended. I'm surprised none of the inverter manufacturers have chosen to comment here, as this could dramatically impact the sales of central inverters. Jeffrey Quackenbush -- http://www.avast.com/ [] http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because http://www.avast.com/avast! Antivirus protection is active. ___ 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
[RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle—for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin Athens Electric LLC OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 http://athens-electric.com/ ___ 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
It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle—for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin Athens Electric LLC OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 http://athens-electric.com/ ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Hi Brian; Invoking 90.4 is a decent idea; the only problem is those smarty pants over at Midnite have been working on their Birdhouse disconnect system for several years already in anticipation of this requirement. I'm not up on all of this (still waiting for my copy of the 2014 Handbook) but I believe their birdhouse and combiner box system meets all the new requirements. R.Ray Walters CTO, Solarray, Inc Nabcep Certified PV Installer, Licensed Master Electrician Solar Design Engineer 303 505-8760 On 1/21/2014 3:36 PM, Brian Mehalic wrote: It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle---for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor,/SolarPro/magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: *From:*Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org *Subject:**Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown* *Date:*January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST *To:*RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org *Reply-To:*RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin /Athens Electric LLC OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 /http://athens-electric.com/ ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto: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 http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org http://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
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Brian, The requirement is generic. A listed contactor can meet the requirement. A standard is only necessary for products that want to be innovative in meeting the 30V, 240VA. Killing all power is an option with existing listed equipment. NEC 90.4 does not apply. Bill. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mehalic Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:36 PM To: RE-wrenches Cc: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle—for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin Athens Electric LLC OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 http://athens-electric.com/ ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto: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 http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org http://www.members.re-wrenches.org --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change email address
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
OK. So I will have a high rate of acceptance if it buy an Tyco vacuum relay, and mount it in a Hoffman enclosure, and then put it on my roof? On 1/21/2014 5:45 PM, Bill Brooks wrote: Brian, The requirement is generic. A listed contactor can meet the requirement. A standard is only necessary for products that want to be innovative in meeting the 30V, 240VA. Killing all power is an option with existing listed equipment. NEC 90.4 does not apply. Bill. *From:*re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Mehalic *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:36 PM *To:* RE-wrenches *Cc:* re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle---for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor,/SolarPro/magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: *From:*Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org *Subject:**Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown* *Date:*January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST *To:*RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org *Reply-To:*RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface. Thank you, Drake Drake Chamberlin /Athens Electric LLC// OH License 44810 CO License 3773 NABCEP Certified Solar PV 740-448-7328 /http://athens-electric.com/ ___ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change email address
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Mark, If that relay you mention is rated for the dc voltage, current, AIR, and temperature it will see, you are good to go. The enclosure would have to be NEMA 4 or mounted in a vertical NEMA 3R box. Then there is always the question of how much experience do you have with that product in that environment in that application. That is a lot to consider. Products that have been used for several years in listed combiner boxes have a track record to consider. Bill. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Mark Frye Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:03 PM To: RE-wrenches Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown OK. So I will have a high rate of acceptance if it buy an Tyco vacuum relay, and mount it in a Hoffman enclosure, and then put it on my roof? On 1/21/2014 5:45 PM, Bill Brooks wrote: Brian, The requirement is generic. A listed contactor can meet the requirement. A standard is only necessary for products that want to be innovative in meeting the 30V, 240VA. Killing all power is an option with existing listed equipment. NEC 90.4 does not apply. Bill. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mehalic Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:36 PM To: RE-wrenches Cc: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown It was suggested to me that since 690.12(5) requires the equipment to be listed and identified, and there is no standard for rapid shutdown equipment to be listed to then 90.3 (.4?...oh why isn't the NEC on my iPad...)says 'revert to the previous version of the NEC' and presto, no need to install rapid shutdown. I don't like this but the the person suggesting it certainly has an audience and this will appeal to installers looking to save on cost wherever possible. Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM, David Brearley david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com wrote: Drake, The language in 690.12 is the compromise solution that was reached to ensure continued industry stability. The alternative to the combiner-level shutdown was module-level shutdown. It took a consolidated industry effort to push the module-level requirements out one more Code cycle-for the exact reasons that you touch on below. Not sure if this link has been published on the Wrenches list or not, but it provides some background on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ David Brearley Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional david.brear...@solarprofessional.com mailto:david.brear...@solarprofessional.com Direct: 541.261.6545 On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org mailto:drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Date: January 21, 2014 11:36:15 AM CST To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Reply-To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Bill, It is good to see that energized conductors are going to be disconnected near the arrays. I've been an advocate of disconnecting these conductors by ground fault sensing equipment since ground fault detection was first implemented in the code. If contactors are to be installed on roofs, it likely won't be long before both ground faults and arc faults are automatically cleared. When the requirement for AC arc fault branch circuit protection was first put in the NEC, it was postdated to allow time for the electrical industry to adapt. This new remote disconnecting requirement does not provide any lead time. As the 2014 NEC is adopted in various jurisdictions, inspectors may feel that it is necessary to disallow systems without the newly required disconnect feature. This may result in serious problems for solar companies and customers, as well as manufacturers. The protection of firefighters is essential. The implementation of renewables is essential also. Insurance claims for weather related, global warming-triggered climatic disasters are rising exponentially. Extreme weather related events result in major loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb from the burning of fossil fuels. This is a crisis of global proportions. My request for code writers is to please take into account the effect that inserting new rules into the NEC may have on the stability of renewable energy, and implement new requirements in a way that will allow for a smooth interface
Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Wrenches, There is no guidance in the Code text for where the shutdown should take place. (1) says: Requirements for controlled conductors shall apply only to PV system conductors of more than 1.5m (5') in length inside a building, or more than 3m (10') from a PV array. So, the provisions apply if the circuit 10' from the array and 5' inside a building, but no mention is made of where the shutdown actually needs take place in the circuit. In the video Bill Brooks suggests that the shutdown mechanism should also be placed within this 10'/5' boundary but that is just an inference -- nowhere in the text is this actually specified. If that was the intent of the Code committee, then they've done a poor job actually expressing it in English. I'm concerned that some AHJs will interpret this to exclude all central inverter systems (without the addition of cost-inducing secondary DC-DC converters like Tigo) because the combiner or junction box can be many feet from the actual beginning of a home run under the array. Alternately, permissive AHJs could allow this function to be fulfilled anywhere, meaning that the implementation won't meet the intent of the writers. I'm also concerned, as Isaac mentioned, that there are no requirements for how the shutdown be initiated, or that it contains of the accessibility and grouping requirements that are always included for disconnects. I really think this should be treated and categorized as a disconnect requirement, not a circuit requirement, because that is the ultimate function that's intended. I'm surprised none of the inverter manufacturers have chosen to comment here, as this could dramatically impact the sales of central inverters. Jeffrey Quackenbush___ 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
Brooks. From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Quackenbush Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:09 AM To: RE-wrenches Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown Wrenches, There is no guidance in the Code text for where the shutdown should take place. (1) says: Requirements for controlled conductors shall apply only to PV system conductors of more than 1.5m (5') in length inside a building, or more than 3m (10') from a PV array. So, the provisions apply if the circuit 10' from the array and 5' inside a building, but no mention is made of where the shutdown actually needs take place in the circuit. In the video Bill Brooks suggests that the shutdown mechanism should also be placed within this 10'/5' boundary but that is just an inference -- nowhere in the text is this actually specified. If that was the intent of the Code committee, then they've done a poor job actually expressing it in English. I'm concerned that some AHJs will interpret this to exclude all central inverter systems (without the addition of cost-inducing secondary DC-DC converters like Tigo) because the combiner or junction box can be many feet from the actual beginning of a home run under the array. Alternately, permissive AHJs could allow this function to be fulfilled anywhere, meaning that the implementation won't meet the intent of the writers. I'm also concerned, as Isaac mentioned, that there are no requirements for how the shutdown be initiated, or that it contains of the accessibility and grouping requirements that are always included for disconnects. I really think this should be treated and categorized as a disconnect requirement, not a circuit requirement, because that is the ultimate function that's intended. I'm surprised none of the inverter manufacturers have chosen to comment here, as this could dramatically impact the sales of central inverters. Jeffrey Quackenbush --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ 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 a link for a video where Mike Holt helps with an explanation to your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ Essentially, the rapid shutdown needs to keep the energized length of conductors to within 10’ of the array if on the roof (this rule is only for arrays on buildings) or within 5’ of building penetration. I would assume that if you are 9’ on the roof, you then only have 1’ in the building before you need the shutdown device. So micro inverters and some DC-DC optimizers should comply with the standard as is (since they prevent wires from being energized with DC voltage before they even leave the array). But string inverter systems will need to get creative with how they address this. Midnite solar disco combiners with the birdhouse seem to be a possible solution, but they add a lot of cost to some smaller systems that didn’t even need combiners before, let alone disconnect combiners with power supply cards and separate control boxes... Hopefully a better solution for small string inverters is on the horizon. With Regards, Daniel Young, NABCEP Certified PV Installation ProfessionalTM: Cert #031508-90 NABCEP Certified Solar Heating InstallerTM: Cert #SH031409-13 From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Quackenbush Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:46 AM To: 'RE-wrenches' Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown I've been going through the new Code book (which is in effect now in Massachusetts) and found myself somewhat puzzled by the intent of the new rapid shutdown requirement in 690.12. Does anyone have insight into how this is supposed to be interpreted and implemented? I've put together a list of my own questions, given below (the numbers reference the new 690.12 text). Thanks! 690.12 Rapid Shutdown 1. Where should the rapid shutdown switch be located? (1) only says that the shutdown function should be installed if the circuit is longer than 10’ or goes more than 5’ into a building. If this condition is fulfilled, it says nothing about where the switch should be located. (2) says that controlled conductors should be limited to 30V, 240W, which will only be the case downline from the switch, so this may mean that it should be located close to the source, i.e. on the roof. But this is just an inference, and one that doesn’t have clear boundaries; every source conductor for a series connected PV circuit (that is not Solar Edge, Enphase , etc.) will have a higher voltage and wattage potential when the sun is shining somewhere along its length, even if the disconnect is located very close to the array. Or does this requirement mean that all systems will need to have some kind of “smart” junction box, module DC-DC converter or module level AC inverter? Furthermore, individual modules often have higher voltages wattages these days and there is no way to impose limits on their electrical characteristics in any field wired configurations. A listed AC module that sees the module leads as internal would be the only scenario that would be exempt. 2. (5) asks that equipment performing the shutdown should be listed and identified. Does that mean listed and identified for the purpose of this specific requirement? Or just listed and identified to limit voltage and wattage in 10 seconds? Does a specific UL standard exist for the function they have in mind? Does any equipment exist that has such listing and identification yet? 3. Is the rapid shutdown intended to be automatic or manual? If automatic, what are the parameters that would trigger the shutdown? If manual, are there any accessibility requirements? 4. Rapid shutdown seems more like a disconnect requirement than a circuit requirement. Why limit circuits to 30V, 240W, instead of just requiring a shutdown? Why 10 seconds, when all the disconnecting functions (i.e. manual disconnects, and internal AFCI, GFCI UL 1740 disconnects) happen in less than a second? (It hardly seems like a “rapid” shutdown). Why write this article into section II rather than section III? _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3658/6483 - Release Date: 01/07/14 ___ 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] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
Does Midnite’s Birdhouse or any combiner solutions meet the requirement to achieve 30V, 240 kVA within 10 seconds? I’ve never seen a string inverter’s DC input terminals drop that quickly, and I’m especially curious to know how the string inverter manufacturers are going to cope with this, or if Midnite has anything to help deenergize the capacitors. Interesting to note that 690.12 doesn’t state where the rapid shutdown should be initiated from, or how many steps could be required. Could we use one disconnect to disconnect the conductors from the capacitors (i.e., at the inverter) and another to disconnect the conductors from the array (i.e., at the array)? Doesn’t seem very “rapid”, but 690.12 isn’t very specific. Isaac Opalinsky SunPower Corporation ___ 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
The un-controlled conductor could be up to 15 feet, 10 on the roof and 5 in the building? Mark Frye Berkeley Solar Electric Systems On 1/15/2014 2:02 PM, Daniel Young wrote: Here is a link for a video where Mike Holt helps with an explanation to your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXShMZJorQ Essentially, the rapid shutdown needs to keep the energized length of conductors to within 10' of the array if on the roof (this rule is only for arrays on buildings) or within 5' of building penetration. I would assume that if you are 9' on the roof, you then only have 1' in the building before you need the shutdown device. So micro inverters and some DC-DC optimizers should comply with the standard as is (since they prevent wires from being energized with _DC voltage_ before they even leave the array). But string inverter systems will need to get creative with how they address this. Midnite solar disco combiners with the birdhouse seem to be a possible solution, but they add a lot of cost to some smaller systems that didn't even need combiners before, let alone disconnect combiners with power supply cards and separate control boxes... Hopefully a better solution for small string inverters is on the horizon. With Regards, Daniel Young, NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional^TM : Cert #031508-90 NABCEP Certified Solar Heating Installer^TM : Cert #SH031409-13 *From:*re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey Quackenbush *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:46 AM *To:* 'RE-wrenches' *Subject:* [RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown I've been going through the new Code book (which is in effect now in Massachusetts) and found myself somewhat puzzled by the intent of the new rapid shutdown requirement in 690.12. Does anyone have insight into how this is supposed to be interpreted and implemented? I've put together a list of my own questions, given below (the numbers reference the new 690.12 text). Thanks! *690.12 Rapid Shutdown* 1. Where should the rapid shutdown switch be located? (1) only says that the shutdown function should be installed if the circuit is longer than 10' or goes more than 5' into a building. If this condition is fulfilled, it says nothing about where the switch should be located. (2) says that controlled conductors should be limited to 30V, 240W, which will only be the case downline from the switch, so this may mean that it should be located close to the source, i.e. on the roof. But this is just an inference, and one that doesn't have clear boundaries; every source conductor for a series connected PV circuit (that is not Solar Edge, Enphase , etc.) will have a higher voltage and wattage potential when the sun is shining /somewhere/ along its length, even if the disconnect is located very close to the array. Or does this requirement mean that all systems will need to have some kind of smart junction box, module DC-DC converter or module level AC inverter? Furthermore, individual modules often have higher voltages wattages these days and there is no way to impose limits on their electrical characteristics in any field wired configurations. A listed AC module that sees the module leads as internal would be the only scenario that would be exempt. 2. (5) asks that equipment performing the shutdown should be listed and identified. Does that mean listed and identified for the purpose of this specific requirement? Or just listed and identified to limit voltage and wattage in 10 seconds? Does a specific UL standard exist for the function they have in mind? Does any equipment exist that has such listing and identification yet? 3. Is the rapid shutdown intended to be automatic or manual? If automatic, what are the parameters that would trigger the shutdown? If manual, are there any accessibility requirements? 4. Rapid shutdown seems more like a disconnect requirement than a circuit requirement. Why limit circuits to 30V, 240W, instead of just requiring a shutdown? Why 10 seconds, when all the disconnecting functions (i.e. manual disconnects, and internal AFCI, GFCI UL 1740 disconnects) happen in less than a second? (It hardly seems like a rapid shutdown). Why write this article into section II rather than section III? No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3658/6483 - Release Date: 01/07/14 ___ 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
[RE-wrenches] NEC 2014 690.12 Rapid Shutdown
I've been going through the new Code book (which is in effect now in Massachusetts) and found myself somewhat puzzled by the intent of the new rapid shutdown requirement in 690.12. Does anyone have insight into how this is supposed to be interpreted and implemented? I've put together a list of my own questions, given below (the numbers reference the new 690.12 text). Thanks! 690.12 Rapid Shutdown 1. Where should the rapid shutdown switch be located? (1) only says that the shutdown function should be installed if the circuit is longer than 10’ or goes more than 5’ into a building. If this condition is fulfilled, it says nothing about where the switch should be located. (2) says that controlled conductors should be limited to 30V, 240W, which will only be the case downline from the switch, so this may mean that it should be located close to the source, i.e. on the roof. But this is just an inference, and one that doesn’t have clear boundaries; every source conductor for a series connected PV circuit (that is not Solar Edge, Enphase , etc.) will have a higher voltage and wattage potential when the sun is shining somewhere along its length, even if the disconnect is located very close to the array. Or does this requirement mean that all systems will need to have some kind of “smart” junction box, module DC-DC converter or module level AC inverter? Furthermore, individual modules often have higher voltages wattages these days and there is no way to impose limits on their electrical characteristics in any field wired configurations. A listed AC module that sees the module leads as internal would be the only scenario that would be exempt. 2. (5) asks that equipment performing the shutdown should be listed and identified. Does that mean listed and identified for the purpose of this specific requirement? Or just listed and identified to limit voltage and wattage in 10 seconds? Does a specific UL standard exist for the function they have in mind? Does any equipment exist that has such listing and identification yet? 3. Is the rapid shutdown intended to be automatic or manual? If automatic, what are the parameters that would trigger the shutdown? If manual, are there any accessibility requirements? 4. Rapid shutdown seems more like a disconnect requirement than a circuit requirement. Why limit circuits to 30V, 240W, instead of just requiring a shutdown? Why 10 seconds, when all the disconnecting functions (i.e. manual disconnects, and internal AFCI, GFCI UL 1740 disconnects) happen in less than a second? (It hardly seems like a “rapid” shutdown). Why write this article into section II rather than section III? ___ 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
