Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

230.71(A)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Thats just great. Make a change to a very longstanding practice with no history of problems or issues, and jack the price up from $5,000 to $10,000 for the service equipment for a 1000 amp 120/208 service. I have one client I do a lot of upgrades for and they will probably just stick with their 40 year old non-AIC compliant equipment rather than pay the upcharge. Genius.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

    Comment


      #17
      Lets say you have incoming service conductors into trough. At present you put four service disconnects however you still have space on trough in fact you can put four more service disconnects based on service and size of trough in future.

      So do you just tell the contractor right now it violates six service disconnects rule and place main breaker now or tell not to install the trough at all?

      OP secanrio would be similar.
      Last edited by hhsting; 04-25-19, 10:19 PM.

      Comment


        #18
        Charlie this is the "what if" scenario.
        And your first post used " if "in the sentence. I think what the fab five were thinking is the same thing. "What if"

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
          Just hurry up and get that installed before the 2020 code is adopted. Multiple service disconnects in a common enclosure will not be permitted in the 2020 code.
          What happened to being about this change? Where did you read this?

          Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by hhsting View Post
            Lets say you have incoming service conductors into trough. At present you put four service disconnects however you still have space on trough in fact you can put four more service disconnects based on service and size of trough in future.
            Six disconnect rule didn't disappear, they just can't be in same enclosure/section anymore. What you described would still be allowed.
            I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by kwired View Post
              Six disconnect rule didn't disappear, they just can't be in same enclosure/section anymore. What you described would still be allowed.
              Ok but post #15 second draft report 230.71(B)(3)(4) says switchboard is allowed to have six service disconnect so as long as they have separate compartments or vertical sections?

              Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
                Just hurry up and get that installed before the 2020 code is adopted. Multiple service disconnects in a common enclosure will not be permitted in the 2020 code.
                This is the worst news I've heard, like, ever.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                  This is the worst news I've heard, like, ever.
                  Yup. Some pretty clueless people must have been involved with that one. I read one of the proposals and the author said something like MLO service panelboards are "no longer relevant". Apparently that person has never designed and priced a mid to large sized service, doesn't understand series ratings, and hasn't done any solar.
                  Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

                  "You can't generalize"

                  Comment


                    #24
                    We buy a lot of Siemens swbd's every year using the six disconnect rule. I'm going to have to ask our vendor how Siemens will be handling this.

                    I really hope they can do compartments of some sort to comply. Putting each breaker in it's own vertical section with barriers seems like it would create such a large footprint it would be ridiculous.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      I like this discussion, moderator vs moderator!
                      Moderator-Washington State
                      Ancora Imparo

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by tom baker View Post
                        I like this discussion, moderator vs moderator!
                        Like the kids who instigates arguments between their parents.
                        Master Electrician
                        Electrical Contractor
                        Richmond, VA

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by hhsting View Post
                          Ok but post #15 second draft report 230.71(B)(3)(4) says switchboard is allowed to have six service disconnect so as long as they have separate compartments or vertical sections?

                          Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
                          This is mostly going to eliminate using a MLO panelboard and installing two to six breakers as your service disconnecting means, or even a seventh or eighth in certain allowed situations.

                          Your typical "Loadcenters" aren't normally rated to be used that way anyhow. Most all have instructions they need to have a main breaker if used as service equipment. Some commercial/industrial panelboards can be used in this way though.

                          I don't deal with many switchboards, but those are kind of customized for the application anyway - if you want six service disconnects in the switchboard, they will build it to comply with any rules changes if necessary.

                          Add, could even be asked when bidding/ordering which edition of NEC it needs to comply with.
                          I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by kwired View Post
                            ...
                            Your typical "Loadcenters" aren't normally rated to be used that way anyhow. Most all have instructions they need to have a main breaker if used as service equipment. Some commercial/industrial panelboards can be used in this way though.
                            ...
                            But there are a ton of existing meter/main combo service equipment enclosures in my area that are MLO. Just a ton. Hundreds of thousands if not a million in our service area. Like a 3rd of the service panels in suburban areas, I'd say. Especially subdivisions dating from, oh, about 1970 to 2000.

                            Here's a fairly typical example that we're dealing with presently:

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	GE MLO.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.9 KB
ID:	2380729
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	GE MLO label.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	97.7 KB
ID:	2380730


                            (Note the part of the label that specifies the six-handle limit.)

                            So in a couple years this panel will be bafflingly no longer compliant.

                            The question is, will we still be allowed to do what we're doing on this job, which is to relocate that 40A circuit to a sub we're installing on the opposite side of the wall, into which we're also inserting our solar breaker? Will the AHJ be reasonable and say that the whole MSP is grandfathered? Or will we have to tell the customer that they need to increase the cost of the project by 10-50% to replace this recessed meter/main, and it's for a really stupid reason that wouldn't have existed in any of the decades since their house was built?

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I also fear it will throw into question solar supply side connections. It's also common to find these meter/mains with two space unused. So, easy solar connection under 705.12(A). The expanded 705.11 in the 2020 code ought to have made these even easier. But now I can see AHJ's saying 'no, you can't add another breaker to this enclosure. You could do a supply side connection but only if you go to a separate enclosure'. Which when talking about meter/mains is exactly the same as saying 'you need to replace the !#@$ service equipment'. So we just went from no change orders for the customer to maybe they don't want to do the project anymore.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                                I also fear it will throw into question solar supply side connections. It's also common to find these meter/mains with two space unused. So, easy solar connection under 705.12(A). The expanded 705.11 in the 2020 code ought to have made these even easier. But now I can see AHJ's saying 'no, you can't add another breaker to this enclosure. You could do a supply side connection but only if you go to a separate enclosure'. Which when talking about meter/mains is exactly the same as saying 'you need to replace the !#@$ service equipment'. So we just went from no change orders for the customer to maybe they don't want to do the project anymore.
                                If it's too late for NEC 2020, I would say try to talk to your state code people who are in charge if adopting/amending the NEC. This is what I plan to do in WA. Of course, unfortunately, most states seem to blindly adopt the latest NEC with all it's unsubstantiated changes and corporate product pushing, but maybe you can get through to someone reasonable.
                                Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

                                "You can't generalize"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X