How's that? (2017) 240.25(B) requires a MBJ in each service disconnecting means. I wouldn't think Exception 1 would apply to a field assembly consisting of a trough and multiple service panels.
It doesn't, it is basically talking about a switchboard or panelboard with more than one service disconnect within, which has more limitations beginning in 2020 than it used to and you will be seeing more trough and multiple service panels that are field assembled with that change, but a grounded conductor needs to go to each and every disconnect and be bonded there.
Keep reading, 230.2(A)(5) there are considerations for a second service for solar.
Yes, we keep a database on jurisdictions as well, it is painful but the less that act different the better off we are. They hopefully become the exception....
Wayne (2020&17) 250.24(A)(1) specifically states any accessible location and the "enhanced content" has drawings noting some of those locations. I think you meant 250 instead of 240, 250.25(B) enhanced content actually shows the bonding in a trough.....
250.24(A) is about the GEC connection and has nothing to do with bonding or MBJ requirements.
A trough ahead of service discos is more or less required to be bonded to the neutral per 250.92. But I can't see how the language of 250.24(B) allows the MBJ to be anywhere other than inside the 'service-disconnect enclosure'. So the enclosure is required to be bonded in both places. One might say that, for the NEC, this is unusually clear and explicit.
I agree. Ok I admit I missed 230.2(A)(5) as mentioned by Wayne and Brad, but irregardless (not a word) its rather absurd to have a service point, a set of customer owned conductors after that point, then a split/tap/splice of some sort, and then to claim you have two services. Lol no.
Well, as far as the rules for how those two service disconnects are configured, does it make any difference whether it's two services (two service points) or one service and two sets of service entrance conductors? Probably at most a little (I haven't poured over 230). So thinking about it as two services could be a useful abstraction, even if there is only one service point.
Well, with respect to the discussion here, if it's actually two services, you most definitely can not omit an MBJ in one of them. Because you don't know for sure if the utility is supplying the grounded conductors from the same system, nor are they obligated to.
Yes, to my knowledge that's never been an option for 2 services or 2 sets of service entrance conductors, only for pre-2020 NEC PV supply side connections, depending on interpretation. And my question was about 2 services vs 2 sets of SECs, no so much the PV supply side options.
If supplied from one drop or lateral (or overhead or underground service conductors), then 230.40 basically says it is one service.
Not exactly. See also 230.40 exceptions 1 and 3. One service with non grouped disconnects.
Exception 1 still basically requires one drop or lateral to supply one to six disconnects that are grouped in one location, it does permit multiple such drops or laterals to supply said multi-occupant building. Most the time such buildings are constructed with fire walls and are sort of separate buildings in many ways because of how they are constructed.
