2020 requirements 230.71B and main breakers

[Mongothedog]

My state has adopted the 2020 code and is looking closely at services surrounding the 230.71B requirement in relation to meter stacks on a duplex or similar structure.

230.71B is pretty clear in the removal of the "6 disconnect rule" requiring each service disconnect to be in a separate enclosure, compartment, panelboard or have vertical separation. As soon as this monster change occurred two pack meters like a siemens unipak 2 gang 125 amp breaker combo were no longer allowed due to the two service disconnects being directly over one another. The 400 amp meter mains with a pair of 200 amp service disconnects under were also not allowed as the two service disconnects were in the same enclosure.

The fix should be that you put a main breaker before hand so that you have feeder disconnect now instead of a service disconnect. I figured this wouldn't be the end of the world but am now being told it has to be a factory main as part of the listed equipment as you can't just put a main in front of the service equipment. Is there a precedence for using non-factory mains before service equipment that can meet code then feeding a meter stack?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Putting a main before the meter can be an issue and , in fact, some power company's don't allow it...so I've heard. I don't see why you don't just use 2 meters and 2 main service panels and be done with it. It would be a lot cheaper, I believe.

 

[Mongothedog]

Putting a main before the meter can be an issue and , in fact, some power company's don't allow it...so I've heard. I don't see why you don't just use 2 meters and 2 main service panels and be done with it. It would be a lot cheaper, I believe.

I believe the various utilities within the state want to bring one line or drop to the building would they then have to bring it to some type of tap box before the multiple meters? Im seeing the same thing on large commercial buildings with 3 or 4 services on one meter stack.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the various utilities within the state want to bring one line or drop to the building would they then have to bring it to some type of tap box before the multiple meters? Im seeing the same thing on large commercial buildings with 3 or 4 services on one meter stack.

You only need one drop... You can either pipe up from each meter and they get tied together or you can install a trough or wireway and go up once. Power company doesn't need 2 drops or laterals, just one

 

[jim dungar]

Be aware of the UL labeling of the meter equipment.The two common types are:
Suitable for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is removable so it can be used after a main device.

Suitable only for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is not removable and therefore cannot be used after a main device

 

[NTesla76]

What part of Iowa are you in?

 

[Mongothedog]

Be aware of the UL labeling of the meter equipment.The two common types are:
Suitable for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is removable so it can be used after a main device.

Suitable only for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is not removable and therefore cannot be used after a main device

I will dig up a few UL listings and see if there are any that may meet my needs.

tesla I am in south west IA.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Be aware of the UL labeling of the meter equipment.The two common types are:
Suitable for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is removable so it can be used after a main device.

Suitable only for use as Service Equipment, means the neutral-ground bond is not removable and therefore cannot be used after a main device

Would not Exception #2 to 250.142(B) permit the bonded meter on the load side of the disconnect?

 

[jim dungar]

Would not Exception #2 to 250.142(B) permit the bonded meter on the load side of the disconnect?

It should, but you know how some AHJs can't get past the equipment label.

 

[Mongothedog]

It should, but you know how some AHJs can't get past the equipment label.

This is the issue that is arising. Because it is listed as "suitable only" in every stack I have close enough to look at quickly in person the fact that I could utilize exception 2 is mute. This will be a state wide issue.

 

[NTesla76]

Some inspectors will work with you on this issue. In the Northeast part of the state anyway. That label issue is weak, IMO.

 

[kwired]

We seem to be ignoring subpart (4) though it seems to cover what OP is asking about.

1 single meter socket with 2-200 amp mains might not be covered but many multimeter assemblies possibly will be covered.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We seem to be ignoring subpart (4) though it seems to cover what OP is asking about.

1 single meter socket with 2-200 amp mains might not be covered but many multimeter assemblies possibly will be covered.

There are no multi-meter assemblies on the market that comply with list item (4). An accepted FR for the 2023 code will require all multi-meter assemblies to have a line side disconnect.
Below is the accepted FR, but is subject to change in the Second Revision or at the annual meeting.

Two to six service disconnects shall be permitted for each service permitted by 230.2 or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5. The two to six service disconnecting means shall be permitted to consist of a combination of any of the following:

1. Separate enclosures with a main service disconnecting means in each enclosure.
2. Panelboards with a main service disconnecting means in each panelboard enclosure.
3. Switchboard(s) where there is only one service disconnect in each separate vertical section where there are barriers separating each vertical section. Barriers shall be provided between each vertical section to maintain the inadvertent contact protection required in 230.62 based on access from the adjacent section(s).
4. Service disconnects in switchgear, transfer switches, or metering centers where each disconnect is located in a separate compartment.
5. Metering centers with a main service disconnecting means in each metering center.
6. Motor control center(s) where there is only one service disconnect in a motor control center unit and a maximum of two service disconnects provided in a single motor control center. Barriers shall be provided between each motor control center unit or compartment containing a service disconnect to maintain the inadvertent contact protection required in 230.62 based on access from adjacent motor control center unit(s) or compartment(s).

Exception to (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6): Existing service equipment, installed in compliance with previous editions of this Code that permitted multiple service disconnecting means in a single enclosure, section, or compartment, shall be permitted to contain a maximum of six service disconnecting means.

 

[Mongothedog]

Some inspectors will work with you on this issue. In the Northeast part of the state anyway. That label issue is weak, IMO.

Des Moines is pushing the issue not your area inspector. This is the same reason you got an email months ago allowing to continue using non-complaint temp services through the 1st of the year. It doesn't matter what the 2023 code is going to include as the adoption won't be until 24 and the manufacturers seem to be having a hard enough time keeping up with normal production right now.

 

[electrofelon]

This issue is yet another example of the incompetence of the NFPA. Jamming this requirement thru, not only with no justification, but with no coordination with manufacturers, no products available to meet the requirement, and no coordination with utilities (many utilities do not allow cold sequence metering for 1-6 meters).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This issue is yet another example of the incompetence of the NFPA. Jamming this requirement thru, not only with no justification, but with no coordination with manufacturers, no products available to meet the requirement, and no coordination with utilities (many utilities do not allow cold sequence metering for 1-6 meters).

First the NFPA, while sponsoring the document, has almost no control of the content. The content is determined by the Code Making Panel members, none of whom are permitted to be employees of the NFPA.

The manufacturers have a place at the table. FR-8642 was a CMP-10 proposal, based on 4 or 5 PIs, and all 12 members of that panel voted in favor. NEMA and Eaton both have representatives on CMP-10. In most cases, where the code is proposing something that the manufacturers cannot comply with, the manufacturing representatives on the code making panel voice their objections, and ether convince other panel members to vote against, or cast a negative vote with a comment showing the reason for the negative vote. A NEMA rep was the submitter of one of the PIs that FR-8642 was based on.

In addition, the utility representative member of CMP 10 did not voice an objection.

There were 8 Public Comments on this change and they were all just language changes. Neither the utilities nor the manufacturers posted comments objecting to this change.

The manufacturers reps on UL 67 were at work trying to revise the product standard to address the new NEC requirements, however those efforts failed.

This will continue to be an issue in the 2023 code for those utilities that do not permit a line side disconnect for 2-6 meters as an accepted FR for the 2023 requires a line side disconnect for metering centers.