I guess you can send your padlockable BRQLW's back... CoCo hit me with 706.7(E).
"Where energy storage system input and output terminals are more than 1.5 meters (5 feet) from connected equipment, or where the circuits from these terminals pass through a wall or partition, they shall comply with the following:"
And in this section is the requirement for a disconnect to be installed at the ESS equipment location.
They agree the BRQLW LOTO clip would satisfy 706.7(B). But they interpret Powerwalls in a garage and a Gateway outside to fall under 706.7(E). And in that application, you cannot use a BRQLW.
So the only time you can evoke 706.7(B) with a BRQLW is if the Gateway were inside of a huge garage but the Powerwalls were on the other end of the garage (but not in line of sight). In this application the fancy clip would be ok. Same goes if everything is installed outside and no wall is passed through.
Interestingly (I'm kidding; this isn't interesting at all), adding outdoor blade disconnects (one for each Powerwall) wouldn't matter for compliance under 706.7. So I'm not sure why Placer county is requiring that unique setup.
Fun times.
"Where energy storage system input and output terminals are more than 1.5 meters (5 feet) from connected equipment, or where the circuits from these terminals pass through a wall or partition, they shall comply with the following:"
And in this section is the requirement for a disconnect to be installed at the ESS equipment location.
They agree the BRQLW LOTO clip would satisfy 706.7(B). But they interpret Powerwalls in a garage and a Gateway outside to fall under 706.7(E). And in that application, you cannot use a BRQLW.
So the only time you can evoke 706.7(B) with a BRQLW is if the Gateway were inside of a huge garage but the Powerwalls were on the other end of the garage (but not in line of sight). In this application the fancy clip would be ok. Same goes if everything is installed outside and no wall is passed through.
Interestingly (I'm kidding; this isn't interesting at all), adding outdoor blade disconnects (one for each Powerwall) wouldn't matter for compliance under 706.7. So I'm not sure why Placer county is requiring that unique setup.
Fun times.