• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

2026 First Draft is Posted

S

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
Looks like 230.85 is deleted and 230.70 revised to require the Service Disconnect at an outdoor location on or within sight for 1 & 2 family dwellings.

No remote control allowed for 1 & 2 family dwellings. Massachusetts will amend the remote control as it is needed for underground services in our Cities and for large residential services over 400-amp.
 
brantmacga

brantmacga

Señor Member
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Former Child
shortcircuit2 said:
Looks like 230.85 is deleted and 230.70 revised to require the Service Disconnect at an outdoor location on or within sight for 1 & 2 family dwellings.

No remote control allowed for 1 & 2 family dwellings. Massachusetts will amend the remote control as it is needed for underground services in our Cities and for large residential services over 400-amp.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in how the remote control section affects MA if you care to explain it to me. I visit Boston and Providence regularly and I'm always very interested at how single-family distribution is built there as it is very different than Georgia.
 
S

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
Inner City Residential Neighborhoods where the are no side alleys and the building frontage is right on the sidewalk (Charlestown for example), have an underground utility manhole system (vaults) and in-street duct banks with the underground service conductors entering the dwellings basement into a terminal box (Tap-Box).

Underground Duct with Manhole>>>Dwelling Basement Tap-Box>>>Service Disconnect (with shunt trip)>>>Meter>>>Distribution Panel
Then locate an EPO switch with a light duty padlock outside.

Here is the 2023 MEC exception to 230.85...

Exception No. 2: A building supplied by a service lateral or by underground service conductors shall be permitted to be capable of disconnection from a readily accessible location outside of the dwelling by using a method providing remote control of the service disconnecting means, and marked: EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT and NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT. The control wiring shall be enclosed in a raceway.
 
M

Mdsparky

Member
Location
massachusetts
Occupation
electrician
wwhitney said:
Then you looked in the wrong place. The First Draft Report available at nfpa.org/70 under "Next Edition" shows 230.85 deleted.

Cheers,
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Thank you. If I understand correctly this would mean in 2026 for one and two family dwellings 4 wires in to panel and 3 wire range and dryer circuits would need to replaced with 4 wire . Costly.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Mdsparky said:
I stand corrected. Thank you. If I understand correctly this would mean in 2026 for one and two family dwellings 4 wires in to panel and 3 wire range and dryer circuits would need to replaced with 4 wire . Costly.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, see 250.140(B) in the 2023 code.
 
tortuga

tortuga

Code Historian
Location
Oregon
Occupation
Electrical Design
Mdsparky said:
I stand corrected. Thank you. If I understand correctly this would mean in 2026 for one and two family dwellings 4 wires in to panel and 3 wire range and dryer circuits would need to replaced with 4 wire . Costly.
Click to expand...
We use 250.130(C) to equipment ground old 3-wire ranges and dryers if the old cable is in good shape. Last I checked Mass did not allow 250.130(C) for some reason, might be a good time to revisit why Mass banned it.
 
M

Mdsparky

Member
Location
massachusetts
Occupation
electrician
tortuga said:
We use 250.130(C) to equipment ground old 3-wire ranges and dryers if the old cable is in good shape. Last I checked Mass did not allow 250.130(C) for some reason, might be a good time to revisit why Mass banned it.
Click to expand...
I was told the reason Ma . deleted that section was that they figured if you can fish in an equipment ground you can change the wiring.
 
tortuga

tortuga

Code Historian
Location
Oregon
Occupation
Electrical Design
Mdsparky said:
I was told the reason Ma . deleted that section was that they figured if you can fish in an equipment ground you can change the wiring.
Click to expand...
Thats crazy, who comes up with this stuff?
I can run a #10 green solid to a old range or dryer from 'any accessible point on the grounding electrode system' for about 1/16th the cost of re-wiring a 8/3 or 6/3 NM with proper physical protection.
Running a EGC can be less than a hour job, the #10 can be run exposed and installed with a low voltage staple gun.
I ran across a range that was on a 10-50 (off a sub panel) that also had a 'pot filler' fed by a copper pipe, so the neutral to the range was also acting as a second N-G bond for the service.
I have also seen gas / electric combo ranges with a 10-50 so then you have a direct neutral connection to the gas pipe.
The state of Mass should adopt 250.130(C) to make it as easy as possible to remove old 10-50's like that.
 
M

Mdsparky

Member
Location
massachusetts
Occupation
electrician
I doubt they will . You can imagine the $$$$ it will add to the cost of a service change if you have to update the old three wire range / dryer. It seems to some money is no object .
 
M

Mdsparky

Member
Location
massachusetts
Occupation
electrician
don_resqcapt19 said:
did you read the section I cited in post #7?
Click to expand...
I did but Massachusetts deleted item 5 . I'm not sure but while I may be able to check off items 1,2,& 3. I only have item four and with the service disconnect now required outside the interior panel board is a sub panel 4 wire which I believe is covered in item 5 ? Which Massachusetts deleted. No? Am I not seeing it correctly? Belive me I'm here to learn . Thank you .
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Mdsparky said:
I did but Massachusetts deleted item 5 . I'm not sure but while I may be able to check off items 1,2,& 3. I only have item four and with the service disconnect now required outside the interior panel board is a sub panel 4 wire which I believe is covered in item 5 ? Which Massachusetts deleted. No? Am I not seeing it correctly? Belive me I'm here to learn . Thank you .
Click to expand...
Sorry....I missed that part. No idea what MA did with their code adoption.
 
S

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
Yes 5 is deleted in Mass.

See the last sentence in 250.140(B)(5) where it calls for the SE grounded conductor to be taped or sleeved to "prevent contact of the uninsulated conductor with any normally noncurrent-carrying metal parts"

Why did CMP-2 put that requirement in there?
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
shortcircuit2 said:
Yes 5 is deleted in Mass.

See the last sentence in 250.140(B)(5) where it calls for the SE grounded conductor to be taped or sleeved to "prevent contact of the uninsulated conductor with any normally noncurrent-carrying metal parts"

Why did CMP-2 put that requirement in there?
Click to expand...
The panel statement for the second revision that made this change for the 2023 code said
The section was revised by changing the main requirement and the former exception into two titled subdivisions. Section 250.140(A) address new installations and, other than the titled subdivision and mandatory text requiring the supply circuit to include an equipment grounding conductor, it remains unchanged from the 2020 NEC.

Section 250.140(B) incorporates the former exception for existing branch circuits that originated at the service equipment and it was expanded to recognize existing branch circuits originating at other than service equipment. The expansion was necessary to provide relief for situations where existing 3-wire branch circuits to electric ranges or dryers are connected to equipment that was formally service equipment but is now feeder supplied.

The hazard addressed by 250.142(B) and 250.140(A), having neutral current on the metal normally non-current-carrying parts (objectionable current), is addressed by the requirement in 250.140(B)(5) to insulate or cover an uninsulated grounded conductor within the supply enclosure so it does not contact metal parts that are normally non-current-carrying. Because the neutral bus will be isolated from the enclosure, the uninsulated conductor must be insulated or covered, so there will be no contact with the metal enclosure and, therefore, no parallel path for objectionable neutral current.
Click to expand...
 
S

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
Thanks for the panel statement...

What about metal junction boxes in the branch circuit between the panel and the outlet? What if that metal junction box where the SE cable was spliced for an older kitchen remodel and it is stuffed up in a bay against a metal pipe or duct? Same for an older laundry relocation and the dryer branch circuit.

Below is a jbox for an older range relocation that had 3-wire SE (left side) feeding from the service panel and 4-wire SE going to the relocated range connected to a 3-wire receptacle. This picture is after the 3-wire was replaced. But, see the jbox up against the metallic foil insulation which was in contact with the flex and the heating pipes to the right. This was an objectional current path.

The 3-wire was replaced with 4-wire to the jbox with a new 4-wire receptacle and range cord with GFCI added with the service upgrade.
IMG_9639.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top