I don't know what this means never did maybe I never will

[david]

Separate load is opposite of same load, so to me any panel that is feeding other loads is a separate load.

I think it was put in there to make sure your not feeding the same load that was allowed back in the split buss panel days, or to distinguish it from a parallel run to the same panel/load, yes it seem kind of dumb but then in some cases the NEC has been dumbed down a bit.

Thanks

 

[hurk27]

Yes 230.82 would allow a meter or time clock line side of a service disconnect.

Take my fathers house he still has the service entrance going through a time clock separate meter and 30 amp disconnect for his hot water
This all originates at the service drop. Along side that he has a second service entrance a meter to a second 100 amp panel grouped next to his 30 amp service disconnect for the hot water.

This is a clear picture of two service entrances supplying separate loads. I am uncertain what defines a separate load. If we could call any separate panel a separate load their would not be a need for that sentence in the exception.

Is their any need for that sentence if their is what distinguishes a separate load. Is it a separate load just because I feel like calling it that.

Actually this is feeding the same load, the time clock was to switch meters in off peek hours, but it was feeding the same load "the water heater" some utilities did this to charge a different rate in off peek hours.

Haven't see one of these set ups in a long time.

 

[david]

My perspective is, there is no difference in the two scenarios you describe, under typical conditions. The service drop typically ends at the overhead connection. The conductors run down from there to the meter are the SEC. If you supply two service disconnecting means off the meter, you are technically splicing or tapping the SEC.

Ok i can see that
Thank you

 

[Smart $]

...

To have a separate set of SEC (under any of the exceptions), they would have to start at the overhead connection (or the end of a service lateral if underground).

I don't agree with the above in red as we use the 230.40 exception(3) all the time when we use a double lug meter base and run to an out building from these extra lugs, the code does not say anything about a tap or that we have to only connect at the weather head.

...

Take a look at definitions...

Service Drop. The overhead service conductors from the
last pole or other aerial support to and including the splices,
if any, connecting to the service-entrance conductors at the
building or other structure.

Service-Entrance Conductors, Overhead System. The
service conductors between the terminals of the service
equipment and a point usually outside the building, clear of
building walls, where joined by tap or splice to the service
drop.

Also...

230.46 Spliced Conductors. Service-entrance conductors
shall be permitted to be spliced or tapped in accordance
with 110.14, 300.5(E), 300.13, and 300.15.

Now look at the topic exception...

Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting
means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location
and supply separate loads from one service drop or lateral,
one set of service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to
supply each or several such service equipment enclosures.

So tell me here how one set of service entrance conductors can supply several separate disconnecting means enclosures unless you splice or tap that one set.

In the scenario you mention, the double lugs in the meter can serve as splice or tap connectors.

 

[david]

Take a look at definitions...





So tell me here how one set of service entrance conductors can supply several separate disconnecting means enclosures unless you splice or tap that one set.

In the scenario you mention, the double lugs in the meter can serve as splice or tap connectors.

Yes but running that tap to a (secondary building) then would be a violation of 230.71. The only correct way to run service to the secondary building from a single drop would be to start at the service drop location. you couldn't tap a single meter unless you grouped the disconnects at one location

 

[iwire]

Yes but running that tap to a (secondary building) then would be a violation of 230.71. The only correct way to run service to the secondary building from a single drop would be to start at the service drop location. you couldn't tap a single meter unless you grouped the disconnects at one location

Just want to point out that the location, position, existence, non-existence of any metering equipment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[david]

Just want to point out that the location, position, existence, non-existence of any metering equipment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I think we all can agree with that its only beig discussed as the tap location

 

[Smart $]

Yes but running that tap to a (secondary building) then would be a violation of 230.71. The only correct way to run service to the secondary building from a single drop would be to start at the service drop location. you couldn't tap a single meter unless you grouped the disconnects at one location

That is correct... in the strictest interpretation (i.e. definitely compliant). The much looser interpretation (and arguably compliant) is SE tap conductors are still SEC per definition, and the supply (tap) end not connecting to the service drop is disregarded.