Circuit ampacity of 5 ton outside unit

Status
Not open for further replies.
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
What is the typical circuit ampacity for a 5 ton HVAC, 230 volt, outside compressor? I am submitting an electrical rule change for Washington to allow an 5 ton unit to be replaced an a lower cost type of permit.
 
Last edited:
You have to get the manufacturers specs. I replaced an old 3.5 ton unit with MCA=32 (9.1 amps/ton) with a 3.0 Ton unit with MCA=14.9 (4.97 amps per ton). Efficiency makes a BIG difference.
 
sgunsel said:
You have to get the manufacturers specs. I replaced an old 3.5 ton unit with MCA=32 (9.1 amps/ton) with a 3.0 Ton unit with MCA=14.9 (4.97 amps per ton). Efficiency makes a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

He's not actually looking to replace a unit, so as long as he's in the ballpark with amperages, we could easily say 7-10 amps per ton would be an average.
 
tom baker said:
What is the typical circuit ampacity for a 5 ton HVAC, 230 volt, outside compressor? I am submitting an electrical rule change for Washington to allow an 5 ton unit to be replaced an a lower cost type of permit.
Click to expand...

My take from this is that you are trying to lower the cost of permit/inspection for the installation of this particular unit.

Does it cost more for your inspectors to inspect a 3 ton unit than it cost to inspect a 5 ton unit?

My point is if it cost more for a permit for each why is that? Inspectors are going to look for same things in either case - proper conductor ampacity, proper overcurrent protection, proper application of wiring methods and spend about the same amount of time if everything is otherwise the same. The fact that one unit only needed 10 AWG conductors and another needed 4 AWG or even 4/0 AWG did not make it any more labor intensive to inspect. In fact the one supplied with 4/0 may have been at grade level and the 10 AWG may have been on a rooftop and it took him more time to do the one on the roof just because of location and not size.

Not singling out you but just saying the basis of determining permit fees may not necessarily be fair in some cases. And that may be your agenda to straighten out some of the fees.

It is not easy to set these fees - there will always be cases where inspector is on a site longer than others and fees collected based on the time he spent there just don't seem right. This is especially true when the fee is based on the value of what is inspected. Those instances I feel are most unfair. I can connect a very expensive piece of equipment with a supply that just takes a few minutes for him to inspect and then take him to the new house for inspection and spend a lot more time looking at simple little things on a permit that was not nearly as costly to purchase.

Biggest difference between cost of permits here is number of branch circuits applied for. About the fairest way I have seen/heard of.
 
kwired said:
My take from this is that you are trying to lower the cost of permit/inspection for the installation of this particular unit.

Does it cost more for your inspectors to inspect a 3 ton unit than it cost to inspect a 5 ton unit?

My point is if it cost more for a permit for each why is that? Inspectors are going to look for same things in either case - proper conductor ampacity, proper overcurrent protection, proper application of wiring methods and spend about the same amount of time if everything is otherwise the same. The fact that one unit only needed 10 AWG conductors and another needed 4 AWG or even 4/0 AWG did not make it any more labor intensive to inspect. In fact the one supplied with 4/0 may have been at grade level and the 10 AWG may have been on a rooftop and it took him more time to do the one on the roof just because of location and not size.

Not singling out you but just saying the basis of determining permit fees may not necessarily be fair in some cases. And that may be your agenda to straighten out some of the fees.

It is not easy to set these fees - there will always be cases where inspector is on a site longer than others and fees collected based on the time he spent there just don't seem right. This is especially true when the fee is based on the value of what is inspected. Those instances I feel are most unfair. I can connect a very expensive piece of equipment with a supply that just takes a few minutes for him to inspect and then take him to the new house for inspection and spend a lot more time looking at simple little things on a permit that was not nearly as costly to purchase.

Biggest difference between cost of permits here is number of branch circuits applied for. About the fairest way I have seen/heard of.
Click to expand...

Inspection fees are based on liability, the same way your home is insured, more expensive home, more costly the policy. So yes, it does cost more to inspect a 5 ton unit than a 3 ton because it costs more to replace a 5 ton unit.
 
Last edited:
elohr46 said:
Inspection fees are based on liability, the same way your home is insured, more expensive home, more costly the policy. So yes, it does cost more to inspect a 5 ton unit than a 3 ton because it costs more to replace a 5 ton unit.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept.

Why does POCO charge same base rate for the million dollar home as it does for a 50K dollar home?

With that concept, if I connect the same piece of equipment in the million dollar home I should charge more because if I do something wrong and it ends up burning the house down I have more liability.


Most AHJ have some kind of protection that relieves them from liability exception may be if some gross negligence can be proven. If their own rules for their employees (the inspectors) are followed this risk is minimized. They are only there to determine if the installation meets codes and standards, not to tell you you will never have an incident resulting in injury or property damage.
 
kwired said:
Interesting concept.

Why does POCO charge same base rate for the million dollar home as it does for a 50K dollar home?

With that concept, if I connect the same piece of equipment in the million dollar home I should charge more because if I do something wrong and it ends up burning the house down I have more liability.


Most AHJ have some kind of protection that relieves them from liability exception may be if some gross negligence can be proven. If their own rules for their employees (the inspectors) are followed this risk is minimized. They are only there to determine if the installation meets codes and standards, not to tell you you will never have an incident resulting in injury or property damage.
Click to expand...

How much liability insurance you have is your personal business, in Pa we are required to have a policy for at least a million dollars. If you burn down a million dollar house, your covered, but if you burn down a 2 million dollar home and you are completely at fault then you will be forking over 1 mil out of your pocket. It's not a new concept. By having an Inspection agency looking at your install they are essentially taking on half of your liability. So yeah, more expensive to replace, more expensive to inspect.

I just inspected a 1 megawatt solar install, 5 mil project. 1% inspection fee to cover the cost to insure the job.
 
elohr46 said:
How much liability insurance you have is your personal business, in Pa we are required to have a policy for at least a million dollars. If you burn down a million dollar house, your covered, but if you burn down a 2 million dollar home and you are completely at fault then you will be forking over 1 mil out of your pocket. It's not a new concept. By having an Inspection agency looking at your install they are essentially taking on half of your liability. So yeah, more expensive to replace, more expensive to inspect.

I just inspected a 1 megawatt solar install, 5 mil project. 1% inspection fee to cover the cost to insure the job.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, an inspector is only personally liable if malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance can be proven. Now this may not be the case if the inspector is working for a private firm.

Pete
 
kwired said:
My take from this is that you are trying to lower the cost of permit/inspection for the installation of this particular unit.

Does it cost more for your inspectors to inspect a 3 ton unit than it cost to inspect a 5 ton unit?
Click to expand...

Washington has a Class B permit, about $11 each. One of the allowed uses is to replace a air conditioning unit, but it has to be 30 amps or less. I want to change the B pemit to allow a 5 ton outside unit.
 
tom baker said:
Washington has a Class B permit, about $11 each. One of the allowed uses is to replace a air conditioning unit, but it has to be 30 amps or less. I want to change the B pemit to allow a 5 ton outside unit.
Click to expand...

I follow what you after.

On our somewhat similar topic - I don't see it fair to charge permits based on value of project.

If a 200 amp service is installed to supply a structure fabricated off site there very well may be no inspection on site of anything but the service. Same 200 amp service could supply millions of dollars of equipment or just a few thousand - service that is being is same either way.
 
tom baker said:
What is the typical circuit ampacity for a 5 ton HVAC, 230 volt, outside compressor? I am submitting an electrical rule change for Washington to allow an 5 ton unit to be replaced an a lower cost type of permit.
Click to expand...

A typical 5 ton single phase 13 seer condenser would be about 35 MCA and 50 MOCP.
 
pete m. said:
As I understand it, an inspector is only personally liable if malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance can be proven. Now this may not be the case if the inspector is working for a private firm.

Pete
Click to expand...

I would agree with that for both municipal and third party agencies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top