2020 NEC : GEC and bonding screw with “emergency disconnect, service equipment”

hbiss said:
I don't like the idea of a main breaker outside in the elements,
Click to expand...
I don't either. Based on the average high ambient temperatures in my area the trip for one brand of breaker will be at least 25% above the handle rating for about 5 months of the year.

I am thinking about a PI that will require the interior panel to also have a main breaker with a rating not exceeding the ampacity of the feeder conductors. The outside breaker would provide the short circuit and ground fault protection for the feeder, and the interior one would provide overload protection for the feeder and the panelboard.
 
wwhitney said:
Presumably that would be a rating that complies with 240.4, so that the exceptions such as 240.4(G) would still apply?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Probably the same language as in 230.90(A) for service conductor overcurrent protection.
Such protection shall be provided by an overcurrent device in series with each ungrounded service conductor that has a rating or setting not higher than the ampacity of the conductor.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't either. Based on the average high ambient temperatures in my area the trip for one brand of breaker will be at least 25% above the handle rating for about 5 months of the year.
Click to expand...
See, whatever they come up with creates problems. What's wrong with a simple two pole disconnect switch next to the meter outside?? Am I missing something? Is it because the manufacturers want to sell more 200A breakers?

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
See, whatever they come up with creates problems. What's wrong with a simple two pole disconnect switch next to the meter outside?? Am I missing something? Is it because the manufacturers want to sell more 200A breakers?

-Hal
Click to expand...
None of this is driven by the manufacturers, this is a first responder driven rule...If whatever is outside is not the service disconnect, we will have the same issues as we have now. To get rid of the issues that 230.85 causes, it must be the service disconnect outside.
As far as the problems, not many agree that there is an issue with the service equipment being outside. Many dwellings in the SW have their panels on the outside, including the branch breakers.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I really don't see any need for any of those for one- and two-family dwellings and have no intention of putting them in my PI.
Click to expand...
Exceptions 1, 2, and 5 are certainly applicable for one- and two-family dwellings. Why do you want to make the requirements for this main feeder stricter than the requirements for service conductors?

Also, what if there is no interior panel? There are lots of temperate weather locales (e.g. coastal California) that usually have an all-in-one meter/main/distribution panelboard outside.

Cheers, Wayne
 
So if the service disconnect is outside the building and the grounding and bonding is done there (assume a meter main) then the "service disconnect" is also serving as an "emergency disconnect" ....Correct?

Then you can go in the building with 4 wires to the main panel.

Does the main panel have to have a main breaker (I think not) you can use a ML panel correct? So You CAN have a Main inside but it s not required?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
None of this is driven by the manufacturers, this is a first responder driven rule...If whatever is outside is not the service disconnect, we will have the same issues as we have now.
Click to expand...
Ok. So tell me why a simple two pole disconnect next to the meter outside to kill power into the dwelling won't do that???? That's all they are asking for. Those guys are used to cutting the drop or pulling the meter. Leave it to the stupid NEC to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and drive everybody crazy. What the hell do the first responders care if it's a breaker and where the GECs connect???

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Ok. So tell me why a simple two pole disconnect next to the meter outside to kill power into the dwelling won't do that???? That's all they are asking for. Those guys are used to cutting the drop or pulling the meter. Leave it to the stupid NEC to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and drive everybody crazy. What the hell do the first responders care if it's a breaker and where the GECs connect???

-Hal
Click to expand...
If it is not the service disconnect, we still have all of the issue that are associated with the current rule in 230.85.
 
wwhitney said:
Exceptions 1, 2, and 5 are certainly applicable for one- and two-family dwellings. Why do you want to make the requirements for this main feeder stricter than the requirements for service conductors?

Also, what if there is no interior panel? There are lots of temperate weather locales (e.g. coastal California) that usually have an all-in-one meter/main/distribution panelboard outside.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I see no need...looking forward to your public comment.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I see no need...looking forward to your public comment.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you want to make an install that is currently code compliant and satisfies your desire for an interior breaker protecting the feeder from overload, and make it no longer code compliant by saying that the feeder conductors need to be bigger. You'd be rendering 310.12 moot.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Not sure why you want to make an install that is currently code compliant and satisfies your desire for an interior breaker protecting the feeder from overload, and make it no longer code compliant by saying that the feeder conductors need to be bigger. You'd be rendering 310.12 moot.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I simply don't see those exceptions being used for a one or two family dwelling and have no intention including them. I have never seen them applied to the service conductors for a one or two family dwelling.

Not going to change my mind, but is makes no difference as my PI will be rejected. Nobody likes the idea that thermal magnetic breakers perform differently when the temperature is low, as such a rule would have people looking at a lot of other applications where breakers are installed in low ambients.
 
Eddie702 said:
So if the service disconnect is outside the building and the grounding and bonding is done there (assume a meter main) then the "service disconnect" is also serving as an "emergency disconnect" ....Correct?

Then you can go in the building with 4 wires to the main panel.

Does the main panel have to have a main breaker (I think not) you can use a ML panel correct? So You CAN have a Main inside but it s not required?
Click to expand...
The inside panel can be MLO as it is feed by a feeder. The first draft would have had the outside service disconnect marked as "emergency disconnect, service disconnect", but the second draft changed that marking to just "emergency disconnect".

I just have issues with the interior panel being MLO because I live in an area where the overload trip point for a 400 amp breaker will be at least 500 amps for 5 months of the year.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The panel or the readers of the first draft can clear that up in the second draft. PIs that go into a lot of detail are typically rejected
Click to expand...
I agree that is some cases a Main breaker at the indoor panel is a good Idea and desirable and doesn't add much cost. But the code is the minimum standard. The installation with a switch or breaker outside is safe and compliant IMHO
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I just have issues with the interior panel being MLO because I live in an area where the overload trip point for a 400 amp breaker will be at least 500 amps for 5 months of the year.
Click to expand...
it would cause problems just like the ones seen on multi-meter centers on hundreds of thousand of apartment buildings all over the northern United States?

Another small problem to worry about. The statics should be available.
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
If it is not the service disconnect, we still have all of the issue that are associated with the current rule in 230.85.
Click to expand...
For some reason my downloaded pdf copy of the 2023 code stops at 230.84 so I was wondering what you were talking about. I had to go back to the 2020 for 230.85. Not sure if anything changed but I'm not seeing anything that would prevent a disconnect switch after the meter. Just the normal bonding of service equipment. The neutral would carry through to the main panel and land on the neutral bar.

Better yet, like I said above incorporate it into the meter enclosure. Then it is out of the NECs jurisdiction. We have bypass meter enclosures with switch contacts, what's the problem?

-Hal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top