ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues What say ye??

Can you explain the 'jurisdictional' issue that prevents the POCO from requiring the PV disconnect?

I would like to know how the POCO can be cutout of the decision to safely isolate the grid from the PV source. I have worked with all three major Calif utilities (SDG&E, SCE and PG&E) plus a couple of smaller ones (SMUD and SVP) and have yet to find one that would allow the interconnection without a visible blade, lockable PV disconnect.

While I agree it is not really necessary given the inverter's required anti-islanding features 'anything' can fail (including the anti-islanding features) and for their piece of mind they mandate the visible verification within their Rule 21 requirements.

I believe 705.21 could be referring to the AC switch required to meet 690.15 and 690.17, those switches are usually integral to the inverters and would not meet the Utilities 'visible' requirement nor would a circuit breaker in Calif since you can not 'visually' ensure the circuit is open.

I should note that I don't do RESI work, so what passes the AHJ's and Utility's inspections in that regard I can't comment on.

As far as being outside, I believe it's not required, but if it isn't and it's not adjacent to the Utility disconnect then a plaque would need to be provided at each disconnect (Utility and PV) showing the location of each per 230.2(E)