I'm not following you. How is this not at the end of the feeder? The feeder
terminates at the main breaker in the subpanel.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:34 PM Brian Mehalic wrote:
> This scenario is certainly allowed, but since it's not at the end of the
> feeder, either:
>
>1. a.
>
>The fee
This scenario is certainly allowed, but since it's not at the end of the
feeder, either:
1. a.
The feeder ampacity shall be not less than the sum of the primary source
overcurrent device and 125 percent of the power-source output circuit
current.
2. b.
An overcurrent device at
Of course the feeder conductors and bus bar could be subjected to a fault.
But we're not talking about faults here. Fault protection is the job of the
PV OCPD And primary supply OCPD to protect the downstream busbar and
feeders. If that wasn't the case, you would need a new OCPD on BOTH the
load an
For further discussion, I don't see how my original scenario is any
different from this attached scenario, which I think everyone would agree
is allowed. All conductors and busbars are subject to the same potential
loads and fault currents.
(Image attached).
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Jaso
Hey Jason,
Here's the 2020 text:
6) Connections shall be permitted on busbars of panelboards that supply
lugs connected to feed-through conductors. The feed-through conductors
shall be sized in accordance with 705.12(B)(1). Where an overcurrent device
is installed at the supply end of the feed-thr
CMP-4 strikes again! That one is pretty obvious. Accessible battery
disconnect requirement no so much. Christopher Warfel
On 10/28/2020 12:40 PM, Brian Mehalic wrote:
There's very "territorial" language in the 2020 NEC 705.11(D):
"For meter socket enclosures or other equipment under the ex
There's very "territorial" language in the 2020 NEC 705.11(D):
"For meter socket enclosures or other equipment under the exclusive control
of the electric utility, only connections approved by the electric utility
shall be permitted."
Brian Mehalic
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professio
Others have pointed this out, but I thought I'd just add a bit of info
based on my experience - the issue is not so much whether you can do a
supply side connection or not, as that is allowed in the code. The issue is
whether you can do wiring in a section of equipment that is only for the
utility.
Hopefully Wisconsin is better than Minnesota about this. As a former
Wisconsin resident, I doubt it...but here is how some of this works in
Minnesota, lest you have any illusion that a PSC or a state cares about you.
In Minnesota the state allows the utility to essentially make any
interconnec
Thanks for all the discussion and insight. I believe the main issue here
is them being territorial about the meter socket (they did not install it
and they do not own it). My follow up question to them was, "I assume that
you allow a 320 A meter socket feeding two main panels. Is this
different?
Hi Kris.
Here in Southern Oregon our utility if Pacific Power. They also will not
allow us to do any kind of connection of tap inside the meter box even with
code approved connection methods. They consider the meter can "their
property" We are allowed supply side connections via any other AHJ
ap
Kris,
Are they telling you the problem is the connection in the meter base? We get
this all the time from local utilities. Even with the listed Milbanks like you
describe, they say no and direct us to tap on the load side of the meter base.
I agree that you may consider an informal complaint
I would think that would be illegal. They don't have jurisdiction on
supply side taps. It's past the meter, and expressly allowed in the
NEC. I would definitely first ask to talk to a higher level person than
the one denying it (paper trail important). If that does not work, then
the PSC is y
13 matches
Mail list logo
