Finally signed the deal here in the SF Bay area

[foo1bar]

And of course If you design it to encroach a bit and its rejected then I suspect I know who has to pay to first argue it then redesign it then resubmit it.

The "arguing" for me was two trips to the fire dept's office by city hall.
The first was maybe 10 minutes to schedule the real meeting. (could have done that by phone, but I was hoping to get it done while I was in the neighborhood anyhow)
The second was ~30 minutes showing the head of the department the design, explaining where the kitchen and attic spaces were relative to the roof layout that I had, pointing out the planned setbacks (and where I wasn't meeting them) and him going "Yeah, that should be fine. We could just have someone take a ladder to the back yard and go up that way to get to the roof."
I was ready to sacrifice two of the panels to allow more of a walkway - but he was fine with my first layout and signed off on it.

[SunEagle]

Come on - if that isn't a cop out I have never heard one.

Let him believe what he wants to believe. It's a free country.

[russ]

Like I said it only seems fair that if faceless paper pushers can do anything they want then why not me? Just trying to do the reasonable thing.

Come on - if that isn't a cop out I have never heard one.

[nomadh]

They are being inflexible because they won't allow you to have your way? 100% the American way in 2014 it seems - and I am American so forget any silly comments along that line.

Well it seems the NEW american way is having no say and begging bureaucrats to use your own property. It was only recently there was no offset requirement. It makes sense to have one but I hear its ridiculously inflexible. And of course If you design it to encroach a bit and its rejected then I suspect I know who has to pay to first argue it then redesign it then resubmit it. When there are too many laws and many bad laws its hard to keep respecting it. Like I said it only seems fair that if faceless paper pushers can do anything they want then why not me? Just trying to do the reasonable thing. Oh and bikerscum, That system sounds like a very good deal. In San Diego I have only 1 estimate near that price so far but I still need to tweak the config.
sa

[sdold]

I just love how they can't allow 2' 11" setback even if it triples the power and halves the cost.

Did you take a set of plans down and talk to them to see if you could work out a compromise? It's worth a try if not, if you think are close enough to seem like you're reasonably trying to meet the spirit of the rule.

After I installed my own system, I helped a friend in Milpitas get approval for self-installing his system with zero clearance on one side and 2-1/2 feet at the ridge. The zero-clearance was approved based on that end having a dutch gable, so access to the area under the gable was deemed sufficient. The reduced clearance at the ridge was based on a discussion with the fire inspector directly, who decided it was good enough based on the slope on the other side of the ridge having easy access. Maybe some inspectors will be hard-nosed about it, but I think it's worth going down and talking to them in person if you can. Both my AHJ and his seemed to enjoy talking over the counter personally about the projects. I was surprised by that.

[russ]

So I figure if they can't compromise on something reasonable and functional I may just install small then after permitting go back and max it out with another 6 or so panels which will probably make it impossible to get around up there. Be ready and willing to accept whatever problems may come - you could well be out in the cold.

Didn't want to do it that way but they are the ones being inflexible. I just love how they can't allow 2' 11" setback even if it triples the power and halves the cost. Oh well I guess they do whatever they wan't and so will I.

They are being inflexible because they won't allow you to have your way? 100% the American way in 2014 it seems - and I am American so forget any silly comments along that line.

[nomadh]

Yea, When I saw what the 3' setback did to my coming install it was ridiculous. I like the idea of having safety access so firemen can do their job but of course the simpleminded government rules (depending on how you interpret them) kill off nearly 50% of my best southern exposure. So I figure if they can't compromise on something reasonable and functional I may just install small then after permitting go back and max it out with another 6 or so panels which will probably make it impossible to get around up there. Didn't want to do it that way but they are the ones being inflexible. I just love how they can't allow 2' 11" setback even if it triples the power and halves the cost. Oh well I guess they do whatever they wan't and so will I.

I SWEAR the new code with the 3' setbacks was written exclusively to screw me. It had to be, it did too good a job just to be coincidence. My roof is cluttered with dormers, peaks, ridges, etc. Fitting all of the Solarworld panels just wasn't going to happen. We tried to sneak a few through in the permitting process, encroaching a foot or so into forbidden territory. Nope, the city was having none of it. The next best plan was to put panels on a lower roof with shade from both sides.

I finally just got tired of the whole thing & did what I should have done in the first place, went to LG 300 panels. Now everything fits on the main roof, price went from $3.55/w to $4.00/watt, 6kw system. (With Solaredge optimizers & inverter) After credits it'll be $1800 more out of pocket. And it will be done.

They charged me just the difference in price from the Solarworld panels to the LG, no extra markups, etc. Those LG300's are expensive... about $450 ea. on the web.

So, another permit submission & I wait. Again.

[warinwarin]

good job.......well done

[ret]

would love to contact your installer as well

Ditto If possible

@Bikerscum. Would you mind PM'ing me your installer details as well?

[derekj]

@Bikerscum. Would you mind PM'ing me your installer details as well?

[SunEagle]

True. The inverter output circuit would be covered primarily by section 705. The only relevant general location provision is in 705.22, namely

There is a requirement for an AC disconnect to be located within sight of the inverter in 705.70 But if you look at the entire section, you see that .70 applies only when the inverter itself is "...Mounted in Not-Readily-Accessible Locations. Utility-interactive inverters shall be permitted to be mounted on roofs or other exterior areas that are not readily accessible." Not exactly applicable to the inside of a garage.

Seems like the install followed the code but the local inspector doesn't agree.

It comes back to the 1st and 2nd rule of inspectors.

1. They are always right. 2. Even if they are wrong refer to rule 1.

[inetdog]

To clarify for others - this section of code is about the DC disconnect.
If the DC wires are inside metal conduit while inside the house then I think his DC disconnect meets the code requirement. (at least my understanding is the disconnect is built into the inverter for Solaredge inverters and that counts for a DC disconnect for this. And that there is an exception that allows the DC wires to have the disconnect be away from where it enters the structure if they're inside conduit (comply with 690.31(G)).)

True. The inverter output circuit would be covered primarily by section 705. The only relevant general location provision is in 705.22, namely

(1) Located where readily accessible

There is a requirement for an AC disconnect to be located within sight of the inverter in 705.70

(2) An alternating-current disconnecting means shall be mounted within sight of or in the inverter.

But if you look at the entire section, you see that .70 applies only when the inverter itself is "...Mounted in Not-Readily-Accessible Locations. Utility-interactive inverters shall be permitted to be mounted on roofs or other exterior areas that are not readily accessible." Not exactly applicable to the inside of a garage.

[silversaver]

The city inspector came today. Had a couple of quibbles about labels and one strange one, at least to me. The main panel is on the outside garage wall, the inverter is in the garage just to the side of it. The AC disconnect box is outside next to the main. He wouldn't approve it... said the inverter's in the garage, the AC disconnect has to be inside the garage.

Sure seems to me the firemen would like to have the disconnect on the outside. The installer said he has never heard of having it inside. I believe him.

He told me arguing with the inspector is futile. I believe him there too.

Soooo... I wait some more.

That is so strange.... I do see installation in SD area that has AC disconnect in the garage. I guess every cities are different. My city required both AC and DC disconnect outside of house.

I know the PCV pipe were big since I have 100A breaker to sub panel using 4 gauge wires..... Here are photos of inside out.

[foo1bar]

I guess that he wants to see the disconnect "in sight" from the inverter, and for someone who is going to be working on the inverter, that has some merit.
Usually the NEC will accept remote disconnects if they are lockable in the OFF position.
Possibly that would satisfy the inspector if it was not obviously lockable when he saw it.
Unfortunately POCO and/or the FD may later insist on a disconnect on the outside too.

If there is a breaker in the outside panel that can also disconnect the AC feed to the GTI (i.e. not a line side tap), then you will have the best of both worlds.

Now, what about an outside DC disconnect for the panels?

I would think that the built-in safety switch on the Solaredge inverter would be sufficient for an AC disconnect that's in sight from the inverter.

"Location. The photovoltaic disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either on the outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the system conductors."
To clarify for others - this section of code is about the DC disconnect.
If the DC wires are inside metal conduit while inside the house then I think his DC disconnect meets the code requirement. (at least my understanding is the disconnect is built into the inverter for Solaredge inverters and that counts for a DC disconnect for this. And that there is an exception that allows the DC wires to have the disconnect be away from where it enters the structure if they're inside conduit (comply with 690.31(G)).)

[inetdog]

FWIW, the most relevant section of the 2011 NEC is 690.14(C)(1):

(1) Location. The photovoltaic disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either on the outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the system conductors.

Nuff said....