2023 NEC Section 210.63(B)(2)

[jrohe]

The following excerpt is from the 2023 NEC Second Draft Report. There are no proposed exceptions to this requirement.


Is it just me or has CMP2 has lost their minds? How can this requirement possibly be met in facilities where the service equipment is just a single panelboard with a main breaker or a tenant with just one panelboard within a multi-occupant building? Do they expect us to tap the service conductors ahead of the main just to serve the receptacle or pull a circuit from an adjacent tenant? There were three public comments (one of them mine) proposing to strike the "and shall not be connected to the load side of the equipment's disconnecting means" and all three PCs got the same nonsensical response. Specifically, CMP2 replied with, "The installation addresses equipment fed by a feeder. By removing “branch circuit” in the first revision, the relief has been provided as requested by the public inputs and public comments.

Am I completely missing something?

Jason Rohe, P.E.

 

[augie47]

If, as your title indicates, it is proposed for 210.63 it sound like it is simply a rewording of receptacle requirements for HVAC equipment.

 

[anbm]

The following excerpt is from the 2023 NEC Second Draft Report. There are no proposed exceptions to this requirement.

View attachment 2561012
Is it just me or has CMP2 has lost their minds? How can this requirement possibly be met in facilities where the service equipment is just a single panelboard with a main breaker or a tenant with just one panelboard within a multi-occupant building? Do they expect us to tap the service conductors ahead of the main just to serve the receptacle or pull a circuit from an adjacent tenant? There were three public comments (one of them mine) proposing to strike the "and shall not be connected to the load side of the equipment's disconnecting means" and all three PCs got the same nonsensical response. Specifically, CMP2 replied with, "The installation addresses equipment fed by a feeder. By removing “branch circuit” in the first revision, the relief has been provided as requested by the public inputs and public comments.

Am I completely missing something?

Jason Rohe, P.E.

The word "equipment" confused me especially the last sentence.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

First, that rule only applies to "other than service equipment", so that part is not an issue as
However, it is a terrible rule and will require a circuit from another location to supply the receptacle in lots of commercial buildings where you run a 480 volt feeder to an electrical closet containing a 480 to 208y/120 transformer and distribution panel. There were a number of PIs that the panel ignored on this issue. The panel did not understand the concerns of the submitters and did not actually address those concerns.

 

[augie47]

The OP's post references 210.63... Does this change affect all equipment tor just HVAC equipment ??

 

[wwhitney]

The OP's post references 210.63... Does this change affect all equipment tor just HVAC equipment ??

The 2020 NEC expanded 210.63, it now has parts (A) and (B). Part (A) is HVAC equipment, part (B) is all equipment that requires dedicated space per 110.26(E), as the OP's post says.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The OP's post references 210.63... Does this change affect all equipment tor just HVAC equipment ??

The part he referenced only applies to the types of equipment that are covered by 110.16(E).

 

[MazzEE]

So this still doesn't make sense to me even with the updated language for 2023 (which helps a little).
Situation A: I have a small building with a single service switchboard (208Y/120V), then i have one 100A 208Y/120V panel in the same room 'A'. The satellite electrical room 'B' is on the opposite end ~100' away and that has one 100A 208Y/120V panel in that room.
Do I now need to have a circuit from room 'B' serve a receptacle in room 'A'? And Vice/Versa? Seems excessive.

Situation B: I have a small building with a single service switchboard, and then one 100A 208Y/120V subpanel, both in the same/only electrical room.
Do I now need to add another separate panel for serving one receptacle in the same room, then have another circuit serve a receptacle from the original subpanel in the same room (i.e. two separate panels, two separate circuits, two separate receptacles.)?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So this still doesn't make sense to me even with the updated language for 2023 (which helps a little).
Situation A: I have a small building with a single service switchboard (208Y/120V), then i have one 100A 208Y/120V panel in the same room 'A'. The satellite electrical room 'B' is on the opposite end ~100' away and that has one 100A 208Y/120V panel in that room.
Do I now need to have a circuit from room 'B' serve a receptacle in room 'A'? And Vice/Versa? Seems excessive.

Situation B: I have a small building with a single service switchboard, and then one 100A 208Y/120V subpanel, both in the same/only electrical room.
Do I now need to add another separate panel for serving one receptacle in the same room, then have another circuit serve a receptacle from the original subpanel in the same room (i.e. two separate panels, two separate circuits, two separate receptacles.)?

Yes, for A that is exactly what the language requires, and is very excessive. I also agree that is what the 2023 code language requires for B.

There were multiple Pubic Comments to remove "and shall not be connected to the load side of the equipment’s disconnecting means" from 210.63(B)(2) but were all rejected by CMP. The PCs cited exactly what you are saying here.

Here are parts of the substantiations for the Public Comments.

For example, if a very small facility can be served by a single panelboard, the restriction would require a second panelboard to be installed just to meet the requirements. Furthermore, these two panelboards would have to be served from two separate upstream disconnecting means, precluding the ability of feeding one panelboard from the another panelboard. Or if a facility has two panelboards located hundreds of feet away from one another, the restriction would require very long branch circuits to be pulled from opposite locations.

If we have a building supplied by a feeder circuit we now must have a feeder circuit and a branch circuit supplying the structure, which violates 225.30. This requirement ends up snowballing into a very expensive installation.

The panel statement in rejecting these PCs did not directly address the PCs as required by the rules for committee projects. The rejection statement was.

The installation addresses equipment fed by a feeder. By removing “branch circuit” in the first revision, the relief has been provided as requested by the public inputs and public comments.

Here is the part of the rule in the 2023 code that is causing the issue.

(2) Indoor Equipment Requiring Dedicated Equipment Spaces.
Where equipment, other than service equipment, requires dedicated equipment space as specified in 110.26(E), the required receptacle outlet shall be located within the same room or area as the electrical equipment and shall not be connected to the load side of the equipment’s disconnecting means.

 

[wwhitney]

Depending on feeder size, seems like it would be possible to tap the feeder with a circuit breaker enclosure or fused disconnect that isn't a "switchboard, switchgear, panelboard," or "motor control center." That would provide the OCPD for the required receptacle, without itself requiring an upstream-supplied receptacle under 210.63(B)(2).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Depending on feeder size, seems like it would be possible to tap the feeder with a circuit breaker enclosure or fused disconnect that isn't a "switchboard, switchgear, panelboard," or "motor control center." That would provide the OCPD for the required receptacle, without itself requiring an upstream-supplied receptacle under 210.63(B)(2).

I guess if the feeder OCPD is the panel's disconnecting means that wouldn't work. You'd also need to add a separate disconnecting means for the panel next to the panel, and that disconnecting means would have to not be a "switchboard, switchgear, panelboard, or motor control center." Since I assume that on a main breaker panel, the main breaker doesn't count as the panel's disconnecting means.

Maybe 210.63(B)(2) will create a market for a piece of equipment that contains a place to land the feeder, a disconnecting means, and an OCPD supplied upstream of that disconnecting means to protect a receptacle, designed in a way to avoid being a panelboard.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tom baker]

To the OPer, in WA we have a very good process to root out these rules that will cause issues. Changes required are identified, submitted to the electrical board (who owns the electrical rules in WA state) and adopted.
We adopted a rule for services where a service recpt is not required for irrigation systems (center pivot) where there is a 480 volt service and no way to get a 120 Volt circuit.
So perhaps there is a similar process in your state.

 

[jrohe]

So this still doesn't make sense to me even with the updated language for 2023 (which helps a little).
Situation A: I have a small building with a single service switchboard (208Y/120V), then i have one 100A 208Y/120V panel in the same room 'A'. The satellite electrical room 'B' is on the opposite end ~100' away and that has one 100A 208Y/120V panel in that room.
Do I now need to have a circuit from room 'B' serve a receptacle in room 'A'? And Vice/Versa? Seems excessive.

Situation B: I have a small building with a single service switchboard, and then one 100A 208Y/120V subpanel, both in the same/only electrical room.
Do I now need to add another separate panel for serving one receptacle in the same room, then have another circuit serve a receptacle from the original subpanel in the same room (i.e. two separate panels, two separate circuits, two separate receptacles.)?

Yes, this is the impetus of my OP. While I understand the intent, this is ridiculous. Unfortunately CMP 2 did not agree with me or two other PIs. I would be interested to hear from the contractors on this site to see if this requirement actually provides any significant benefit to them.

 

[kwired]

So isn't this saying if you had 480/277 feed supplying say a 208/120 transformer and a panelboard that this required receptacle can not be supplied from the load side of the panelboard so therefore you at least need to tap the secondary conductor and install an additional OCPD just to supply that one receptacle or maybe even tap the primary and supply another transformer that only feeds the receptacle?

They might have an intent but didn't think about what the wording actually says.

It is Ok for receptacle at the service equipment to be shut down if the service disconnect is open but the hazards are increased if it is a feeder or separately derived system being the supply and that receptacle gets shut down with the feeder?

 

[xformer]

So what I am understanding is that when you install a feeder for equipment as per 110.16(E), a separate branch circuit is also required to be ran with the feeder for the equipment?

 

[petersonra]

Yes, this is the impetus of my OP. While I understand the intent, this is ridiculous. Unfortunately CMP 2 did not agree with me or two other PIs. I would be interested to hear from the contractors on this site to see if this requirement actually provides any significant benefit to them.

the benefit is that there is extra work to be done that can be charged for.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, this is the impetus of my OP. While I understand the intent, this is ridiculous. Unfortunately CMP 2 did not agree with me or two other PIs. I would be interested to hear from the contractors on this site to see if this requirement actually provides any significant benefit to them.

It is probably an obsolete rule for electrical equipment as so many of the tools used are battery powered.

It may still be required for HVAC as they often run their vacuum pumps overnight and not sure that battery powered vacuum pumps that would run long enough are available.

 

[kwired]

It is probably an obsolete rule for electrical equipment as so many of the tools used are battery powered.

It may still be required for HVAC as they often run their vacuum pumps overnight and not sure that battery powered vacuum pumps that would run long enough are available.

Obsolete because of battery powered tools, yes. Thing is there never really was such rule other than when Art 440 items are involved until more recently.

Around here farms, grain storage facilities, and many other larger facilities or business, organizations even municipalities that have multiple locations they must service equipment at almost always have a portable welder/generator set on service truck(s) they utilize. I think said outlet in question is pushing the limits on NEC being a safety thing vs a design manual, even though it claims it is not a design manual.