Hopefully this is the best place for this one, and I pray I won't start a giant war like so many times starts in Code discussions.

I'm installing a XW6048 and XW E-Panel from Mid-Night Solar.

I will have 3 arrays goint to a MNPV3 and 2 arrays going to another MNPV3

Does anyone see any problem with using the INPUT breakers to the charge controllers as the Code Required "PV Source Circuit" Disconnects?"

From HomePower 118 page 104 I quote:

A Main DC PV Disconnect is required where the PV DC circuits from the PV array enter the building (Section 690.13;690.14) On a PV system, the main PV DC disconnect falls into this category if the PV DC conductors penetrate the house.

I'm trying to ensure my inspection is a one-stop, no arguments day

I sure would LOVE to see pics of someone else's install of a XW E-Panel.
Anyone?

You can have the breaker at the charge controllers as long as the run inside the structure is in emt ( 690.31 E ) which is the exception to the rules you quote in 690.13/14

Code now allows emt inside a building for PV source as the NEC 2002 didn't, and NEC2005 now has the 690.31 E exception for the breakers as EMT won't have the issue with fault burn thru that PVC has

This changed with NEC2005 so the short answer is you use emt from the roof penetration to the charge controller and with this requirement meet, the breakers can be at the charge controller

A John Wiles Article

A Picture of allowed wiring

I've been reading code for over an hour, and all I've done is decide that I want to go find John Wiles and kick him in the teeth. Every time he tries to explain it, he just makes it worse, IMHO. Only thing worse than NEC code is to go read a Criminal law book for an hour...

Everything inside the house is/will be run in EMT, thats a understood. I just prefer the look of EMT when I can have it.

So that picture shows a PV disconnect outside AND inside. Is that an either or? I'm trying to figure out if I HAVE to have a PV disconnect outside or not.

On the plans, right now I have "Array.group.1" going into a MNPV3 (3-15ampbreakers) then that combiner output goes outside via EMT to a SqD Non Fused disconnect, then back into the house via EMT, to the XW E-Panel breaker in, to XW charge controller, back to the output breaker, to load

I would love to avoid that outside Sq-D part of the plan. "EMT and wire ain't cheap" (that, and I don't really want to run it) But I'm beginning to think I might just do it, just for the sake of hanging another box on the wall outside. That article sure makes it look like I should have that.

No external disconnect is required when you have emt ... Yes that is a poor diagram, its was trying to show "both" as an option

I think what he is asking can the Over Current Protection devices on the inputs to the charge controller(s) be used as the Code required PV system disconnect(s)? I read the code as saying a disconnect needs to be after the combiner boxe(s) such as a 2 or 3 pole Square-D handle type disconnect of the proper current rating clearly marked for the fire department "PV SOURCE CIRCUIT DISCONNECT".

I say "NO", the charge controller OCPD nor the GFI can be used as the PV Source Circuit disconnect even if they would serve the purpose.

But I could be wrong, with only 30 years electricial experence and 6 years installing solar electric, you never know with me. Right Rob?

Well, not sure how to say this gently, but you are wrong. I'm a designer in the industry and know for sure the disconnect/ breaker/fuse can be at the charge controller. No other extra PV source disconnect is required as long as its wired per 690.13/14 and in emt with the 690.31 exception ( if you don't have it, get the NEC2005 code book )

A combiner is a different thing , each string must have there own over current protection when more than two strings are combined. This is to prevent a fault in one array sinking the current of all the other parallel strings.

Most gridtie inverters ( like the xantrex GT series ) have the disconnect built in to the unit. From a code prospective, that is all that is required

As for what your local building department wants, they can add any requirement they like, they are basically GOD when it comes to getting their approval.

This is why I hate code questions. Three people can read it three different ways, which means come inspection day, you roll the dice.

rob,
this is why solar guppy said, "As for what your local building department wants, they can add any requirement they like, they are basically GOD when it comes to getting their approval." He is the one you have to ask because he can implement his own rules if he wants to. we tend to assume they follow the NEC somewhat so we try for those as best we can interpret. your inspector can also misinterpret, but he's the one you have to listen to as he has the force of law locally, right or wrong. some aspects of the NEC rulings aren't that good either and some inspectors (the good ones that is) see that and make their own corrections.

I have had really good experiences with the building inspectors. On the solar, its usually the first time they have ever seen this equipment first hand and the inspectors end up coming back with the whole building department ( 4 -6 other inspectors ) just to show off what the equipment and installation looks like in the wild. On my solar, between the Building department and the electric company, I've had probably over 30 "tours", PV is very rare where I live, even with the State rebate program.

On the 690 stuff, for code guidance and compliance, its as straight forward as the NEC gets. I assume your friend Rob is a Master Electrician, when he started 30 years ago, there was no section 690 and it is revised every 3 years to keep up with technology and installation changed for improvements for safety AND cost reductions for installations when possible. Until I bought the actual code book, I felt how you do, not sure who was correct and not liking the conflicting answers. best 60 bucks I ever spent and it can be read ( for solar ) in a few hours.

On this solar issue you raised, its very clear, so I doubt if one has a NEC 2005 or 2008 book in hand you would have any issues with passing an inspection on this question. I have also on commercial jobs dealt with some very hard nosed inspectors ( standard commercial electric stuff) that all other electricians just cave into.

Last job had to do with fill factors on emt, the inspector was counting the neutrals as current carrying when in this case the code was clear on it wasn't to be counted as "current carrying" ( neutrals balance out at full loads, which is what fill factor deals with ). He wanted a third main run for sub-circuits, would have cost thousands in scrape wire alone. I challenged him and asked he come back the next day as I didn't have the code book on hand. I spent the night highlighting my NEC book and had everything written out for him the next day. He came back and when he realized he was in error in simply changed his tune and signed off the rough in. When the day the Final came, he didn't even look at one circuit or question one thing simply smiled, signed the permit and we were done.

The point of the story is inspectors are not use to being challenged, and like anyone, they may not be current or even have correct knowledge of more advanced aspects of a project. Inspectors for the most part see the same thing over and over again and its been my experience, even when challenged if done in a respectful and the enjoy learning new things.

Well, it IS called "Weekend Warriors AKA Do It Yourself Solar". And what do warriors do ??