230.71(B)

[augie47]

As Dennis pointed out in Post #10, under the new provision there are no exposed live parts outside of the service which is separated by a barrier or in a separate enclosure. Without a separate disconnect the meter stack you show has numerous live parts when any covers are removed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am sort of getting that, but I disagree as to the interpretation. Lets agree to disagree. However my question still stands. What is the purpose of this new wording of the code and how does it make things safer? Please note. That removing the covers expose live parts in this type of cabinet. The same goes for ones that only have a single breaker. If you pull the breaker there are live parts. Am I missing something?

Service enclosures with only a single OCPD are required to have all of the line side live parts insulated. Under the current rules, there should not be any way to pull a breaker and have exposed live parts. This is all based on worker safety and exposure to live energized parts.

This really originated with proposals that I made at least 4 code cycles ago. My proposals were to require a completely enclosed compartment for the service OCPD like you see in the panels used in Canada. I gave up after three tries, but then someone came up with the line side barrier rule and in 2020 that was expanded.

Using the old rules there is no OSHA compliant way to work in the panel that contains the service disconnect unless you have the utility kill the line side.

 

[Sierrasparky]

As Dennis pointed out in Post #10, under the new provision there are no exposed live parts outside of the service which is separated by a barrier or in a separate enclosure. Without a separate disconnect the meter stack you show has numerous live parts when any covers are removed.

I get that but I think you are forgetting is that there is always live parts if you take off the covers. The covers are shown in my picture will not come off unless the utility unlocks the meter. Other old types have common cover that will expose the breaker buss stabs which will be live if a breaker is changed. I am sure that the new so called compliant ones will have exposed parts if the breaker is removed unless there is some sort of wireless connection or some new fangled bus stab

Service enclosures with only a single OCPD are required to have all of the line side live parts insulated. Under the current rules, there should not be any way to pull a breaker and have exposed live parts. This is all based on worker safety and exposure to live energized parts.

This really originated with proposals that I made at least 4 code cycles ago. My proposals were to require a completely enclosed compartment for the service OCPD like you see in the panels used in Canada. I gave up after three tries, but then someone came up with the line side barrier rule and in 2020 that was expanded.

Using the old rules there is no OSHA compliant way to work in the panel that contains the service disconnect unless you have the utility kill the line side.

The attached PDF is a so called compliant panel. There are still live parts if you remove the breaker. That is the same with most of the older panels today. The only way I see to deal with this so called safety issue is to have a switch ahead of ALL the meters. Oh and since when are we trying to make stuff idiot proof where only a professional is supposed to service the component?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I get that but I think you are forgetting is that there is always live parts if you take off the covers. The covers are shown in my picture will not come off unless the utility unlocks the meter. Other old types have common cover that will expose the breaker buss stabs which will be live if a breaker is changed. I am sure that the new so called compliant ones will have exposed parts if the breaker is removed unless there is some sort of wireless connection or some new fangled bus stab

The attached PDF is a so called compliant panel. There are still live parts if you remove the breaker. That is the same with most of the older panels today. The only way I see to deal with this so called safety issue is to have a switch ahead of ALL the meters. Oh and since when are we trying to make stuff idiot proof where only a professional is supposed to service the component?

Panels before the 2020 code and before the revised meter center product safety standard do have exposed like parts...the elimination of those is the whole purpose of these changes.
The compliant panel should have line side barriers to cover all exposed line side live parts in the breaker enclosure with the breaker installed. There will be exposed live parts in the meter socket part of the enclosure.
The requirements do not address removing the breaker itself because there is no OSHA compliant way to do that without having the line side power killed by the utility. They also do not address the parts in the meter socket because after the utility turns on the power, the meter socket is under the exclusive control of the utility.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Panels before the 2020 code and before the revised meter center product safety standard do have exposed like parts...the elimination of those is the whole purpose of these changes.
The compliant panel should have line side barriers to cover all exposed line side live parts in the breaker enclosure with the breaker installed. There will be exposed live parts in the meter socket part of the enclosure.
The requirements do not address removing the breaker itself because there is no OSHA compliant way to do that without having the line side power killed by the utility. They also do not address the parts in the meter socket because after the utility turns on the power, the meter socket is under the exclusive control of the utility.

Most of the meter paks I have installed have the breaker flip covers at the bottom, they have always had barriers from live parts (less the stabs for the breakers) so again I do not see the point of this rule. The separate compartment is just silly and a complete waste of Metal, Material, time , money and space. IMHO. The pic is of a older 4 meter pac and one I replaced a couple of years ago. Neither of the two have live exposed parts except if the meters are removed or the little stabs for each breaker. Again this separate compartment for each tenant breaker is plain stupid.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Most of the meter paks I have installed have the breaker flip covers at the bottom, they have always had barriers from live parts (less the stabs for the breakers) so again I do not see the point of this rule. The separate compartment is just silly and a complete waste of Metal, Material, time , money and space. IMHO. The pic is of a older 4 meter pac and one I replaced a couple of years ago. Neither of the two have live exposed parts except if the meters are removed or the little stabs for each breaker. Again this separate compartment for each tenant breaker is plain stupid.

Did you submit a PI to try and make a change for the 2026 code? Too late now, but code is made and changed by the code making panel's action on submitted PIs.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Did you submit a PI to try and make a change for the 2026 code? Too late now, but code is made and changed by the code making panel's action on submitted PIs.

Yeah blame it on me for having an opinion and not trying to correct a stupid rule. What I would really like to know is what the exact proposal was that got this language into the code. I am sorry but I really don't have the time or know how to search the CMP proposals. Just a FYI here in the republic of California we are at least 3 years behind the NEC. This section came as a complete surprise. To get CA to make a change you need to be a Engineer. Many times stuff is just done without proper justification or vetting.

If someone told me that this was done to keep each customers feeder and breakers separate then maybe I'd listen. However to cause a manufacturer to design what looks like several meter mains bolted together in a row it just plain stupid. A simple divider would be all that was necessary.

 

[jaggedben]

Yeah blame it on me for having an opinion and not trying to correct a stupid rule. What I would really like to know is what the exact proposal was that got this language into the code. I am sorry but I really don't have the time or know how to search the CMP proposals. Just a FYI here in the republic of California we are at least 3 years behind the NEC. This section came as a complete surprise.

We've always been exactly 3 years behind. Which means you had 3 years to be aware this was coming.

To get CA to make a change you need to be a Engineer. Many times stuff is just done without proper justification or vetting.

No, CA adopts the NEC (3 years behind) practically verbatim. Which means the most effective way to make a change is to involve yourself in the NEC public input process. Which does not require credentials.

Unfortunately you missed the deadline for the 2026 NEC, but there will be a round of comments, so if you see additional proposed changes to this section then you can state your support or objection for the Second Draft round.

I realize it's frustrating and demotivating that such action won't have an effect in CA until years down the road.

If someone told me that this was done to keep each customers feeder and breakers separate then maybe I'd listen. However to cause a manufacturer to design what looks like several meter mains bolted together in a row it just plain stupid. A simple divider would be all that was necessary.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with you. These changes are pretty much never substatiated with data on actual impact on injury or damage. And they often change things that weren't considered a problem for decades. But the only way to fix the process is to get involved.

 

[Sierrasparky]

We've always been exactly 3 years behind. Which means you had 3 years to be aware this was coming.


No, CA adopts the NEC (3 years behind) practically verbatim. Which means the most effective way to make a change is to involve yourself in the NEC public input process. Which does not require credentials.

Unfortunately you missed the deadline for the 2026 NEC, but there will be a round of comments, so if you see additional proposed changes to this section then you can state your support or objection for the Second Draft round.

I realize it's frustrating and demotivating that such action won't have an effect in CA until years down the road.


For what it's worth, I completely agree with you. These changes are pretty much never substatiated with data on actual impact on injury or damage. And they often change things that weren't considered a problem for decades. But the only way to fix the process is to get involved.

I know you don't have to be a engineer, however the BSC in CA really won't listen to you unless you are and are connected. The CMP will not just accept a proposal unless you have some clout. Case in point they added the new wording to this code that did not need any. It was about a lobbyist.

Then there is the issue that life is too short, I learned my lesson there. I just don't have the time anymore to bang my head against the wall. We have lobbyist that will push for crap and get it. I have had enough of the nonsense. I probably will let my license expire in 2026 when CA will make it mandatory to carry work comp on a sole-proprietor that has no employees. Flip me over I am done. This kind of garbage makes it a easier decision.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yeah blame it on me for having an opinion and not trying to correct a stupid rule. What I would really like to know is what the exact proposal was that got this language into the code. I am sorry but I really don't have the time or know how to search the CMP proposals. Just a FYI here in the republic of California we are at least 3 years behind the NEC. This section came as a complete surprise. To get CA to make a change you need to be a Engineer. Many times stuff is just done without proper justification or vetting.

If someone told me that this was done to keep each customers feeder and breakers separate then maybe I'd listen. However to cause a manufacturer to design what looks like several meter mains bolted together in a row it just plain stupid. A simple divider would be all that was necessary.

Not blaming you, I understand you don't like the rule. The only way to fix that is to change the code.

There were multiple proposals over at least 4 code cycles that resulted in the new rule. They are all based on safety for the person working on the service equipment and the fact that it is almost impossible to have "justifiable energized work" within the service equipment for dwellings and commercial occupancies. The rules let you turn off the main and work on equipment on the load side of the service disconnect.

As far as the actual design of the equipment that can be used, that is based on the requirements of UL 67. The Technical Committee (TC) for that product standard came up with a design and changes to the requirements of the product standard that they feel meet the intent of the NEC rule. Much of the discussion was around what a "compartment" is. Some TC members said just insulating barriers would be compliant and others said the compartment must be more substantial. The TC process works much the same as the NEC in that it is a consensus standard and it takes a 2/3's majority vote to change the standard. The process ended up as defining a compartment as an enclosure that complies with the requirements of UL 50, Standard for Safety for Enclosures for Electrical Equipment. That is the standard that junction boxes are listed to.

 

[jaggedben]

Don, were there any actual incidents that led to this change? Or just paranoid worry?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Not blaming you, I understand you don't like the rule. The only way to fix that is to change the code.

There were multiple proposals over at least 4 code cycles that resulted in the new rule. They are all based on safety for the person working on the service equipment and the fact that it is almost impossible to have "justifiable energized work" within the service equipment for dwellings and commercial occupancies. The rules let you turn off the main and work on equipment on the load side of the service disconnect.

As far as the actual design of the equipment that can be used, that is based on the requirements of UL 67. The Technical Committee (TC) for that product standard came up with a design and changes to the requirements of the product standard that they feel meet the intent of the NEC rule. Much of the discussion was around what a "compartment" is. Some TC members said just insulating barriers would be compliant and others said the compartment must be more substantial. The TC process works much the same as the NEC in that it is a consensus standard and it takes a 2/3's majority vote to change the standard. The process ended up as defining a compartment as an enclosure that complies with the requirements of UL 50, Standard for Safety for Enclosures for Electrical Equipment. That is the standard that junction boxes are listed to.

The problem if you did not feel it from what I said. It is that too many people think that stuff needs to be made safer. That others feel the need to make change. I understand this from the standpoint of a residential single meter service. But to make this rule for commercial and multifamily is absolutely ludicrous. Only trained persons should tough panels like this. I fully support Darwinism if some un-authorized person plays with this stuff. These rules seem to make up for the lack of training. Sorry folks. Heck I don't want some untrained person working on this stuff. Darwins theory.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, were there any actual incidents that led to this change? Or just paranoid worry?

There were number of arc flash incidents over the years that this was being proposed. It was also about providing an installation that would be OSHA compliant for work in the service equipment enclosure without having to call the utility to kill the line side.
My original proposal was strictly based on the requirements in 70E and OSHA and proposed a separate enclosure for the service disconnect within the main enclosure like has been required by the Canadian code for years.

 

[Sierrasparky]

There were number of arc flash incidents over the years that this was being proposed. It was also about providing an installation that would be OSHA compliant for work in the service equipment enclosure without having to call the utility to kill the line side.
My original proposal was strictly based on the requirements in 70E and OSHA and proposed a separate enclosure for the service disconnect within the main enclosure like has been required by the Canadian code for years.

What do Canadian 6 meter pack look like?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What do Canadian 6 meter pack look like?

No idea, as my original proposal was only related to single service enclosures and had nothing to do with meter packs. All of the line side parts are behind that top cover in the picture below. I based my proposal on that because all of the manufacturers that make panels for the US market also make them for the Canadian market and no redesign would be required.
Others expanded the idea to include other types of service equipment.

 

[Sierrasparky]

That panel is overkill. All that is necessary is some plastic barrier. If someone unqualified needs to be kept out. Sou think that setup is gonna do it. The idiot cheapskate home owner is still gonna try to replace the main breaker themselves. This is just silly.

Again a little Darwinism here is all that is needed.

So the NEC took a reasonable issue and ran with it. They ran so far to the lobbyist and made a multi meter panel grow in size, use more material , weigh more all in the name of safety. Yeah. This is exactly my gripe.

Hope you have a nice weekend.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That panel is overkill. All that is necessary is some plastic barrier. If someone unqualified needs to be kept out. Sou think that setup is gonna do it. The idiot cheapskate home owner is still gonna try to replace the main breaker themselves. This is just silly.

Again a little Darwinism here is all that is needed.

So the NEC took a reasonable issue and ran with it. They ran so far to the lobbyist and made a multi meter panel grow in size, use more material , weigh more all in the name of safety. Yeah. This is exactly my gripe.

Hope you have a nice weekend.

My proposal had ZERO to do with homeowners or unqualified workers.
It was 100% based on the fact that there is no OSHA complaint way to work in the enclosure that has contains the service disconnect without having the utility kill the line side. I am not convinced that the insulating barriers have changed that.

 

[Sierrasparky]

My proposal had ZERO to do with homeowners or unqualified workers.
It was 100% based on the fact that there is no OSHA complaint way to work in the enclosure that has contains the service disconnect without having the utility kill the line side. I am not convinced that the insulating barriers have changed that.

Really, I replace main breakers and or change feeders on panels all the time without any danger of contacting live parts. I know that the left coast has weird panels and ringless meter bases . That stuff is just unsafe componentry, Yeah lets go and make new stupid rules that affect others.

 

[letgomywago]

The problem if you did not feel it from what I said. It is that too many people think that stuff needs to be made safer. That others feel the need to make change. I understand this from the standpoint of a residential single meter service. But to make this rule for commercial and multifamily is absolutely ludicrous. Only trained persons should tough panels like this. I fully support Darwinism if some un-authorized person plays with this stuff. These rules seem to make up for the lack of training. Sorry folks. Heck I don't want some untrained person working on this stuff. Darwins theory.

I believe the emergency disconnect rule only applies to single and two family homes. Large meter gangs come with main disconnect switches often from utility requirements and dont need to be changed by this. In unipack style meter gangs you have the line side disconnect in a separate compartment and are all good afterward.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I am sorry but I do not understand your point. What is the this emergency disconnect rule. If you are speaking of the old wording of max of 6 flips of handles. That applied to all services, not just residential. Oregon could of had some other meaning.

I believe the emergency disconnect rule only applies to single and two family homes. Large meter gangs come with main disconnect switches often from utility requirements and dont need to be changed by this. In unipack style meter gangs you have the line side disconnect in a separate compartment and are all good afterward.