Screw driven between breakers.

Why would somebody put a screw here and what’s wrong with it? The home is in Mission Viejo CA, 125 amp panel, 1989 house.

Perfectly normal for a back fed breaker.

Did you open the panel enclosure?

It’s a back feed breaker. It needs to be secured.

Yes I opened the panel and it looked good.

Thanks guys.

Here’s the NEC reference:

its ok

There is an exception to that rule, which I learned after about 2 years of incorrectly calling it out :roll:

Anyone (other than our resident experts) want to guess what the exception is? :smiley:

How about a bolt-on breaker?

When power is being fed from solar.

Ha!
The pope admits he is not perfect!!:mrgreen:

There’s hope for us all.

Correct. As long as the inverter is listed as “utility interactive,” the back-fed breaker is not required to be secured in place.

The head of engineering for Verengo Solar called me personally and told me where to find the exception. My bad call was causing headaches for the local builders who had no idea that an exception existed. Apparently, it eventually went up the chain 8)

Wouldn’t a bolt-on breaker be considered “secured?”

Lighten up pal! :stuck_out_tongue:

Just curious, where is that in the NEC?

NEC 705.12(D)(6)

705.12(D)(6) Fastening. Listed plug-in-type circuit breakers backfed from utility-interactive inverters that are listed and identified as interactive shall be permitted to omit the additional fastener normally required by 408.36(D) for such applications.

Nice article…

Thanks for that :smiley:

Thanks. :slight_smile:

I guess I should add…it is not actually an “Exception” to any rule. It is the amended rule of Article 705. Also while that is a amended rule in Chapter 7…the real lesson is do you all know why the fastening is not required?

As Mr. Gromicko would say…it’s less about the Code and more about the WHY!