Review my results and code sections please!

[ivsenroute]

I am in PA and assume the permit was pulled before Jan 1 so the 2005 NEC applies. The main difference is that "all loads" is not in 2005 which is the one that would apply in this particular case.

My humble opinion as an inspector:

1) 310.15(B)(6) would apply due to the language in NEC 2005
2) The neutral must be the larger of the 2: Calculated load or 250.122
3) I would want a calculated load for the service too (garage and house)

Outside of the inspector hat:

1) I would not want to find or pay for a 200A breaker to feed the house from the other panel (bolt on maybe but then not pay for it)

2) Disco outside the garage with double lugs to feed both the garage and house as mains or properly rated meter base with double lugs.

 

[quogueelectric]

Thanks Augie! Don't mean to be a pain I'm just trying to grasp all of this.

I recall that somewhere in my formal training the neutral size was not less than 2 wire sizes smaller than the feeder size. This may have very well disapeared over the years. I have some old code books and I could probably research this more when I am not so busy. This may have been a poco requirement however the wire mfgs would put the correct size in the rope so you would never have to worry your pretty little head about it.

 

[RETRAINDAILY]

Ok I agree with you Augie, but as you stated 215.2 is the minimum which meets code correct? Now before we get to far I'm planning on running same size neutral, but how would an inspector fail an installation per 215.2? I don't believe he would do a calculation if he did it would be the first time I witnessed it.

you are correct he will not. and me too
You will and he will want to see it. IMO you should do that when you do your under ground inspection

 

[Article 90.1]

Before feeding the house with a 200 amp plug in breaker (hard to find & costly), I would look at the cost of running 2 100 amp feeds to the house. You could put one near the kitchen for shorter home runs of all the kitchen branch circuits, and the other maybe on the other end of the house- again, shorter home runs.

 

[fishin' electrician]

This section has caused me too much grief over the last several cycles. Not in application because it's generally overlooked in my area, but because I just like to know what the code is actually supposed to mean.

They might as well just delete 310.15(B)(6) in it's entirety. They've been revising it and revising it and rev..., well they just can't get it right. I certainly couldn't get it written in a way that makes it clear, but enough already.

 

[augie47]

That section has caused a degree of controversy. The changes in the '08 Code were an attempt to clarify the "whole house feeder" issue, but then the 338.10 vs 310.15 change muddied the water even more. It appears in '11, the language may again be changed thanks to some submittals from Forum members and Mr. Holt. Perhaps it will be clearer.