Window size is not in any regulation that I have seen.
@Benjamin Brooks Listen to @Vines, who knows whereof he speaks.
@Benjamin Brooks Listen to @Vines, who knows whereof he speaks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Santa Clara County retroactively Changing ESS Rules
- Thread starter Vines
- Start date
Autocorrect failed! certain size of windows. When my installer came, he looked at the windows I had, and said that I am fine by installing the PW closer than 36". As the windows I have in the kitchen are smaller than what would have consider to be used for emergency.
I see no exemption in the code for size of the window. This is not only about egress, but about fire and smoke intrusion into the home.
Some AHJ might allow an exemption based on window size but I do not know of one.
It makes sense, I didn't see anything referring to the size or door either. Just was passing what they have done before. I didn't have to do it as I have plenty of empty wall. Hopefully once UL+ pass I can just stack battery, so I don't have to space all of them
The latest Tesla Powerwall datasheet does indeed show the 9540A testing has been performed. it also shows a maximum LRA of 88A per powerwall.
Not sure if this is still growing, but it is a bit shy of what the datasheet showed on 6/1/21. That document showed 104 LRA.
Though Tesla was hoping they would support 104 LRA, something may have stopped them at 88 LRA. It could be that future firmware upgrades are going to keep increasing this.
Not sure if this is still growing, but it is a bit shy of what the datasheet showed on 6/1/21. That document showed 104 LRA.
Though Tesla was hoping they would support 104 LRA, something may have stopped them at 88 LRA. It could be that future firmware upgrades are going to keep increasing this.
Which powerwall 2 is that data sheet from (the model 201XXXX or model 301XXXX), or does it cover both?
Cool, thanks! I asked, because I am trying to figure out the difference in those two powerwall versions.
Would that mean 3' separation is not longer required and stacking should be allowed?
Currently Powerwall 2 can be installed per the CFC and CRC with less than 3' in between them. The installation manual allows 10" side to side and the fire testing allowed slightly closer spacing. Santa Clara County Fire is still denying this UL 9540A test report as a valid justification, and they have some reasons why they think there are issues I am sure. They refuse to share these reasons for denying this 9540A test report, but if someone were to FOIA their communication regarding this test report it might be illuminating.
Most other jurisdictions are being reasonable. They know that when a NRTL (nationally recognized testing lab) Like UL, CSA, Intertek gets paid a few hundred k dollars they do know what they are doing.
Unfortunately, there are strong minds and wills in the fire service that arent necessarily swayed by the NRTL data, fire tests and test reports. Only homeowner pressure to the fire chief or county board of supervisors could change this answer.
Thank you, yeah wonder when that would be allowed so I can add 3x PW to my system. Should have done that when I ordered the system but didn't.
Call, email and write your local fire service and your AHJ, or wait until it settles in some number of months or years.
Very informative thread but still a little overwhelmed and confused. I'm going to be remodeling / reconstructing a home in San Francisco in the second half of 2022. I know San Francisco is more difficult / restrictive than other AHJs. Will I able to install 3 PWs in the attached garage and if so will they need to be installed 3 feet apart and away from a door / window entering the home? Initially I thought I was going to be limited to 1 PW but it appears like the code has been updated to allow for 80 kWh.
FYI, there's a thread at mikeholt.com about this issue of heat detectors for ESS in unconditioned garages where the ambient temperature could exceed 100F:
This post has some specific suggestions of hardware for a small standalone smoke detector system with a heat alarm rated 194F, since those are not available as an interconnected heat alarm under UL 217:
Of course, that wouldn't cause the interconnected smoke alarms to go off.
Cheers, Wayne
Heat Detection for Energy Storage Systems
I have been volunteered to canvas and (hopefully) find out how other California jurisdictions are handling this wide-open-to-interpretation “reasonable alternatives”. Storage System operating conditions for ambient temperature are usually well above the 100-degree F mentioned in the bulletin...
xenforo.mikeholt.com
This post has some specific suggestions of hardware for a small standalone smoke detector system with a heat alarm rated 194F, since those are not available as an interconnected heat alarm under UL 217:
Heat Detection for Energy Storage Systems
I have been volunteered to canvas and (hopefully) find out how other California jurisdictions are handling this wide-open-to-interpretation “reasonable alternatives”. Storage System operating conditions for ambient temperature are usually well above the 100-degree F mentioned in the bulletin...
xenforo.mikeholt.com
Of course, that wouldn't cause the interconnected smoke alarms to go off.
Cheers, Wayne
I moved your post to this thread because this is the thread with most of the discussion on this topic. I am not quite sure where it stands as of right now (april 2022), regarding stacking of powerwalls, and whether its allowed at all, or there are onerous requirements in order to comply, that are causing your installer to say "no you cant do that anymore".
@Vines would definitely know the current status of this.
There is a push from some in the fire community to reject Tesla UL 9540A Large scale Fire testing based on what seems to me to be a technicality.
@timeslip might try to inform your local AHJ that the testing has been performed, they might not know this and are just responding to the code requirements.
It is more likely your installer knows the latest, but it never hurts to reach out to your officials and talk with them. It might go some way to change minds.
Basically, it seems that the fire community is rejecting the Tesla testing on what feels like a creative interpretation of the large-scale test results.
No, the Santa Clara County fire association refused any further discussion on this topic. They will only talk with Tesla.
Tesla says they are asking for information about the cell level and unit level testing, which is not a requirement per the code. The information requested would give away some of Tesla IP.
I participated in a presentation that Tesla put on and the testing seemed compelling to me. The battery maintained safety despite a major failure event involving many cells.
Similar threads
