250.32(B)(2), whats bad about it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what is wrong with 250.32(B)(2)? From the "secret task force" thread there was discussion about eliminating this provision in 2008, People on this forum have said that it is not recommended and implied that the code prefers one use a EGC, Washington state does not allow it. Just looking for a little theory behind this issue.
 
If it is bad so are all of our services. The hazard is the same on both sides of the service disconnect. You actually have a better fault clearing path from the remote building when using the provisions of 250.32(B)(2). This because the grounded conductor is almost always larger than is the EGC.
Don
 
I am also interested in reading what the substantiation is for the proposal. Like Don stated, there are huge inconsistencies on how the code handles installations before and after the service disconnecting means.

The code (CMP's) shouldn't get into the business of designing electrical systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top