petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
Read last sentence of 110.10
Isn't that what we have been using for years when a POCO wants a supply side disconnect for a meter socket? Granted this is usually for 480/277 services when that happens.Do they even make a "bladed" disco without OCPD that is SUSE rated?
Rules possibly vary but I'd guess most places make you bring it up to current code if replacing such a panelboard. They may let you add a branch circuit if not modifying the panel or it's supply, then there may be some that won't let you do anything without making it right.But what if it isn't? We all know that plenty of older installations aren't compliant with the latest code for whatever reasons.
Let's also say for the sake of argument that the service entrance cable or conduit is inaccessible without demolition and refinish, or it's too small to pull an EGC into, or something like that.
For the sake of incentivizing implementation of 230.85, should there not be some kind of exception?
This isn't a problem very often with a single or two family dwelling.I am uncertain what you are saying here. Are you saying if it is Suitable for use as service equipment than I can ignore if the the AFC exceeds the SCCR?
If it is on the supply side of the meter it is not expected to interrupt fault current, similar to how a meter and socket does not have an SCCR either. If it is the service entrance device then it needs to have the proper SCCR.I am uncertain what you are saying here. Are you saying if it is Suitable for use as service equipment than I can ignore if the the AFC exceeds the SCCR?
I dont think I agree Jim. First, I dont see what being on the supply side of a meter has to do with anything. Yes meter sockets have SCCR's, see attached photo. IF something is not an interrupting device then of course it has a SCCR not an AIC, but I dont see its location changing anything. I dont see anything saying we can ignore SCCR just because its not a service entrance device.If it is on the supply side of the meter it is not expected to interrupt fault current, similar to how a meter and socket does not have an SCCR either. If it is the service entrance device then it needs to have the proper SCCR.
I admit I am not entirely sure what that means, but it seems a leap to me to say that SUSE means we can ignore SCCR ratings. This document from Ul explaining what SUSE means says nothing that supports that.Read last sentence of 110.10
The last sentence is what I am assuming everyone is hanging on to...Read last sentence of 110.10
Does equipment under control of the POCO need to follow the NEC?If it is on the supply side of the meter it is not expected to interrupt fault current, similar to how a meter and socket does not have an SCCR either. If it is the service entrance device then it needs to have the proper SCCR.
Equipment on the supply side of the service point no. Pretty much all self contained meter sockets and CT cabinets where I work are on the load side of the service point and are supplied, owned and maintained by the customer. There are some odd cases where Poco supplies and owns equipment on the load side of the service point, and I find it little bit of a gray area as it doesn't even fit into the NEC concept of a service having a service point.Does equipment under control of the POCO need to follow the NEC?
I am thinking am example for discussion would be a disconnect ahead of a 480V 100A or 200A meter base...where the utility does not provide the disconnect but demands it be installed. Then YES, if I am directing an EC to install it, the piece of equipment has to be rated for the AFC it is exposed to.Does equipment under control of the POCO need to follow the NEC?
If it's owned by the customer, yes.Does equipment under control of the POCO need to follow the NEC?
The underground feed meter socket only, on the side of my house, is owned by me but installed per the POCO requirements not those of the NEC.If it's owned by the customer, yes.
Conversely though, if some kind if meter disconnect is under the exclusive control of the utility, I can't say it could satisfy 230.85.
Then that building would not be a one or two-family dwelling which 230.85 refers to.I am thinking am example for discussion would be a disconnect ahead of a 480V 100A or 200A meter base...where the utility does not provide the disconnect but demands it be installed. Then YES, if I am directing an EC to install it, the piece of equipment has to be rated for the AFC it is exposed to.
Not sure what your point is. The NEC has no special requirements for meter sockets that I'm aware of. Just 110.3(B). But, to the point, just because no one enforced NEC requirements on it doesn't mean no one could have.The underground feed meter socket only, on the side of my house, is owned by me but installed per the POCO requirements not those of the NEC.
So the real answer is 'It depends'.
Hello DennisThen that building would not be a one or two-family dwelling which 230.85 refers to.
Yes that was claimed, but I see no evidence that it is true - that is not what SUSE means according to my research.I thought the argument was a manufacturer that puts a SE label on it was somehow exempted from meeting this requirement
I would say it is installed per BOTH the POCO requirements and the NEC. Does the POCO require something that is an NEC violation?The underground feed meter socket only, on the side of my house, is owned by me but installed per the POCO requirements not those of the NEC.
So the real answer is 'It depends'.
I have to agree. A typical load center that also serves as the service disconnecting mean is SUSE, yet you still need something rated for the available fault current.Yes that was claimed, but I see no evidence that it is true - that is not what SUSE means according to my research.
I thought this discussion was over years ago. Yes the utility company's draw something up and do zero research on whether a product can be pulled off the shelf to meet the environment it will be inserted into. After bringing this issue up with the metering dept they revised the standard to allow a FUSIBLE disconnect if necessary.I would say it is installed per BOTH the POCO requirements and the NEC. Does the POCO require something that is an NEC violation?