7 gang meter bank

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wireman76

New member
I was asked to replace the existing service on a house (which is being rented as 6 apartments). The customer would like to have a meter for each apartment plus a house meter. Is it true that i need a disconnect for the entire service because of the 7th meter? If I was only installing 6 meters could I get away without a disconnect? (there just is not enough room for a 400 amp disconnect and a 7 gang meter bank). Thanks in advance for any information. I can be reached directly at
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Email removed, use PMs if you want
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to the forum.:)

The code section that addresses the number of disconnects that can constitute the main service disconnecting means is 230.71.

Chris
 
Run a single phase service lateral for your apartment panels, and a three phase service lateral for your house panel (if you can get both from the utility.)
 
Looks to me as if 230.40 exception no. 4 allows another set of service entrance conductors and it?s my opinion that 230.71 (A) will allow additional service disconnects ??for each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40 Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5??

Any thoughts?
 
OTT2 said:
Looks to me as if 230.40 exception no. 4 allows another set of service entrance conductors and it?s my opinion that 230.71 (A) will allow additional service disconnects ??for each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40 Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5??

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I read 240.40 exception no. 4 as allowing one set of service entrance conductors to each dwelling unit (and one more for the house panel.)

So you'd have seven sets of service entrance conductors and seven service disconnecting means.

If installation space was the concern in the OP, I'm not sure that seven separate separate disconnects would work.
 
david luchini said:
I read 240.40 exception no. 4 as allowing one set of service entrance conductors to each dwelling unit (and one more for the house panel.)

So you'd have seven sets of service entrance conductors and seven service disconnecting means.

If installation space was the concern in the OP, I'm not sure that seven separate separate disconnects would work.
Click to expand...

I see 230.40 Exception #4 permitting one set of service entrance conductors for the dwelling units and an additional set of service entrance conductors be allowed to supply the house panel.

I don't see where that exception permits a separate set of service entrance conductors for each dwelling unit.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
I see 230.40 Exception #4 permitting one set of service entrance conductors for the dwelling units and an additional set of service entrance conductors be allowed to supply the house panel.

I don't see where that exception permits a separate set of service entrance conductors for each dwelling unit.

Chris
Click to expand...

That's interesting, I guess you could read it either way. I don't see where it says you are permitted two sets of service entrance conductors, but not more.

The circuits covered in 210.25 are both dwelling unit branch circuits and common area branch circuits. So the exception would seem to say that one set of service conductors can supply equipment for dwelling unit and common area branch circuits.

But why would you need an exception for the requirement of one set of service-entrance conductors, in order to provide one set of service-entrance conductors?
 
Last edited:
david luchini said:
That's interesting, I guess you could read it either way. I don't see where it says you are permitted two sets of service entrance conductors, but not more.

The circuits covered in 210.25 are both dwelling unit branch circuits and common area branch circuits. So the exception would seem to say that one set of service conductors can supply equipment for dwelling unit and common area branch circuits.

But why would you need an exception for the requirement of one set of service-entrance conductors, in order to provide one set of service-entrance conductors?
Click to expand...

Under the 2005 NEC 210.25 only dealt with common area branch circuits. It was under the 2008 NEC that that section was renamed and split into 2 parts.

Now the 2005 section did also have the same language in regards to dwelling unit circuits only supply loads associated with that dwelling unit, but the emphasis of the 2005 section was the requirement that common area branch circuits be supplied from a common house panel.

Also the exception #4 to 230.40 allows a second set of service entrance conductor to supply the house panel, if there is no loads associated with 210.25 that would require a house panel then the exception would not apply.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
Under the 2005 NEC 210.25 only dealt with common area branch circuits. It was under the 2008 NEC that that section was renamed and split into 2 parts.

Now the 2005 section did also have the same language in regards to dwelling unit circuits only supply loads associated with that dwelling unit, but the emphasis of the 2005 section was the requirement that common area branch circuits be supplied from a common house panel.

Also the exception #4 to 230.40 allows a second set of service entrance conductor to supply the house panel, if there is no loads associated with 210.25 that would require a house panel then the exception would not apply.

Chris
Click to expand...

Yes, under 2008 that section would split into 2 parts. BUT, nothing in the 230.40 exception 4 changed from 2005 to 2008. It still says the circuits covered in 210.25. Those circuits are listed in 210.25(A) and 210.25(B).
If the exception said the circuits covered in 210.25(B), then I could see an interpretation allowing a second set of service-entrance conductors for the house panel.

However, it is not written that way. "...circuits covered in 210.25" refers to both the circuits in (A) and (B). And there is still no direct reference to two sets of service-entrance conductors. So it is either an exception which allows ONE set of SE conductors instead of ONE set of SE conductors, or it allows ONE set of SE conductors to each dwelling unit and house load whose branch circuits which must be kept separate.
 
david luchini said:
Yes, under 2008 that section would split into 2 parts. BUT, nothing in the 230.40 exception 4 changed from 2005 to 2008. It still says the circuits covered in 210.25. Those circuits are listed in 210.25(A) and 210.25(B).
If the exception said the circuits covered in 210.25(B), then I could see an interpretation allowing a second set of service-entrance conductors for the house panel.

However, it is not written that way. "...circuits covered in 210.25" refers to both the circuits in (A) and (B). And there is still no direct reference to two sets of service-entrance conductors. So it is either an exception which allows ONE set of SE conductors instead of ONE set of SE conductors, or it allows ONE set of SE conductors to each dwelling unit and house load whose branch circuits which must be kept separate.
Click to expand...

Let me try to explain my position better.:)

You are correct that nothing changed in 230.40 Exception #4 but section 210.25 did change. It is my belief that the CMP missed the problems that were created to the exception by rearranging 210.25.

Under the 2005 NEC 210.25 was titled "Common Area Branch Circuits". It is my belief that Exception #4 to 230.40 permits one set of service entrance conductors in addition to the one set allowed by 230.40, to supply a house panel that feeds the common area branch circuits.

Chris
 
Here the POCO will only supply one service per address, and I will clarify that to mean one main address. Our utility and or FD wouldnot want to have to be running all over to read meters or shut down power during a fire.

So my opinion would be that you need a main.
 
Seems to me that the power that be should up it to 7 disconnects. Buildings are usually square or rectangular so you end up with 2,4,6 tennants. Would make sense to me to have it be 7 disconnects so the last odd one can be the house panel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top