User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: 230.71(A)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Glen bunie, md, us
    Posts
    520
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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"

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Eastern Oregon
    Posts
    3,787
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    8,178
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like this discussion, moderator vs moderator!
    Moderator-Washington State
    Ancora Imparo

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    25,535
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tom baker View Post
    I like this discussion, moderator vs moderator!
    Like the kids who instigates arguments between their parents.
    Code references based on 2005 NEC
    Larry B. Fine
    Master Electrician
    Electrical Contractor
    Richmond, VA

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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:	92 
Size:	66.9 KB 
ID:	22855
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GE MLO label.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	97.7 KB 
ID:	22856


    (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?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •