9 service disconnects?

[JasonCo]

I think the contradiction has to do with the tap box? If it is owned by POCO or by owner? In my case, my POCO's Service Manual states that the Tap Box and conductors shall be owned, installed and maintained by the owner. Although it also states that the Tap Box shall be lockable and can accept a POCO lock.

 

[electrofelon]

Not to stir things up, I just want to clarify why or if there is some sort of contradictory statements, maybe based off a gray area in the code?

Is post #19 by @jaggedben incorrect or just depends on how you interpret something in the book?

the key is recognizing the code does NOT say "you can only have 6 service disconnects per service". What it says is:

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service entrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1,
3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets
of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six
switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard or in switchgear. There shall be not more than
six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location

This is 2014 reference and there may be some differences under 2017 and 2020.

 

[JasonCo]

Here is the 2020 code.

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects. Each service shall have only one disconnecting means unless the requirements of 230.71(B) are met.

230.71(A) General. For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed as part of listed equipment and used solely for the following shall not be considered a service disconnecting means:
(1) Power monitoring equipment
(2) Surge-protective device(s)
(3) Control circuit of the ground-fault protection system
(4) Power-operable service disconnecting means

230.71(B) Two to Six Service Disconnecting Means. Two to six service disconnects shall be permitted for each service permitted by 230.2 or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5. The two to six service disconnecting means shall be permitted to consist of a combination of any of the following:
(1) Separate enclosures with a main service disconnecting means in each enclosure
(2) Panelboards with a main service disconnecting means in each panelboard enclosure
(3) Switchboard(s) where there is only one service disconnect in each separate vertical section where there are barriers separating each vertical section
(4) Service disconnects in switchgear or metering centers where each disconnect is located in a separate compartment

Informational Note No. 1: Metering centers are addressed in UL 67, Standard for Panelboards.

Informational Note No. 2: Examples of separate enclosures with a main service disconnecting means in each enclosure include but are not limited to motor control centers, fused disconnects, circuit breaker enclosures, and transfer switches that are suitable for use as service equipment.

So, apparently code has changed? What used to be allowed is more clearly stated in the 2020 book. So having 9 disconnects coming out of this tap box is not allowed, regardless of their grouped locations. I would have to run another service lateral, correct?

 

[electrofelon]

Here is the 2020 code.



So, apparently code has changed? What used to be allowed is more clearly stated in the 2020 book. So having 9 disconnects coming out of this tap box is not allowed, regardless of their grouped locations. I would have to run another service lateral, correct?

Seems like the language is pretty much the same. Not sure how you are reading the part in red from.

 

[JasonCo]

I misread 230.40 Exception No. 1. in the 230.71(B) reference. This is where you are saying it allows the 9?

230.40 Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets. Each service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors.

Exception No. 1: A building with more than one occupancy shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as permitted in 230.2, run to each occupancy or group of occupancies. If the number of service disconnect locations for any given classification of service does not exceed six, the requirements of 230.2(E) shall apply at each location. If the number of service disconnect locations exceeds six for any given supply classification, all service disconnect locations for all supply characteristics, together with any branch circuit or feeder supply sources, if applicable, shall be clearly described using graphics or text, or both, on one or more plaques located in an approved, readily accessible location(s) on the building or structure served and as near as practicable to the point(s) of attachment or entry(ies) for each service drop or service lateral and for each set of overhead or underground service conductors.

Damn I am having such a hard time wrapping my head around if I can or cannot have more than 6 disconnects per service. I feel like I'm thinking about this all so wrong, I'm so lost. I feel like I'm getting caught up on the service lateral. I have heard from so many people one service lateral is one service, one overhead service is one service. That's probably where I'm getting so confused. Then I read 230.71(B) where it clearly states
"Two to six service disconnects shall be permitted for each service "

I feel lost. Going to re-read this entire thread and see if that changes.

 

[texie]

I'm surprised at the overthinking here. It's a code violation. You're allowed six service disconnects. You have nine.

 

[electrofelon]

I misread 230.40 Exception No. 1. in the 230.71(B) reference. This is where you are saying it allows the 9?



Damn I am having such a hard time wrapping my head around if I can or cannot have more than 6 disconnects per service.

Get this out of your head. There is nothing in the code that says you cannot have more than 6 disconnects per service!

Look again at post #42, particulary the highlighted part. You are allowed 6 disconnects per 230.40 exception, which in this case is #1. Each occupancy can have up to 6 disconnects. You just cant have more than 6 grouped in one location, and as mentioned this is a bit ambiguous.

 

[wwhitney]

Don's got the right analysis. If there are 9 occupancies, then one service lateral can supply 9 sets of service entrance conductors per 230.40 Exception 1, and each set can have up to 6 service disconnects per (2017) 230.71(A) (with at most six disconnects grouped in one location.) So you could have 54 sets of disconnects, in 9 groups of 6, if desired.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Hv&Lv]

To steal from Smart$...

Would this make you feel better? What if there were 9 meters/disconnects there instead of 7

 

[electrofelon]

To steal from Smart$...

Would this make you feel better? What if there were 9 meters/disconnects there instead of 7

To me those are all "grouped in one location.". To me, "grouped in one location" doesn't mean you can have, say, 9 all equidistant from each other and then just arbitrarily chunk it up into different groups. But I guess someone else could argue if the dividing wall of the occupancy splits it into two groups you're good.

 

[Hv&Lv]

To me those are all "grouped in one location.". To me, "grouped in one location" doesn't mean you can have, say, 9 all equidistant from each other and then just arbitrarily chunk it up into different groups. But I guess someone else could argue if the dividing wall of the occupancy splits it into two groups you're good.

But it’s 9 different services. No grouping needed.

 

[electrofelon]

But it’s 9 different services. No grouping needed.

I have to disagree. To me that is one service with one service drop supplying 9 sets of service entrance conductors. See 230.40 opening sentence. Now I do admit this could be a gray area because the NEC cant control how a POCO supplies a service (even though they try)

 

[electrofelon]

Also if you are calling that 9 services, you better have a justification that you are allowed 9 per 230.2...

 

[JasonCo]

Here this is the man himself. Mike Holt isn't directly spelling it out but he literally points at each meter/disconnect and calls each one a service. Go to 0:22 and hit play. So according to Mike Holt, I have 9 services.

 

[electrofelon]

Here this is the man himself. Mike Holt isn't directly spelling it out but he literally points at each meter/disconnect and calls each one a service. Go to 0:22 and hit play. So according to Mike Holt, I have 9 services.

He just misspoke or had a poor choice of words there.

 

[jaggedben]

Please read 230.40 Exception #1 and then read 230.71(A) in the 2017 code or 230.71(B) in the 2020 code.

Sorry everyone, but JasonCo hasn't described an installation that qualifies under 230.40 Exception #1. As now quoted in post #42, that exception refers back to 230.2, which allows multiple services for multiple occupancies (section B) "where there is no space for service equipment accessible to all occupants." The OP has shown us a drawing where all the meters are in one location. That location is either accessible to all occupants or it isn't, but additional services are not allowed in the same location to serve ordinary loads.

There is no situation in which the code allows more than 6 service disconnects for ordinary loads in one location.

More of a fine point, but a given meter also may or may not have an individual occupancy attached to it.

 

[jaggedben]

To steal from Smart$...

Would this make you feel better? What if there were 9 meters/disconnects there instead of 7

The NEC wouldn't allow that many services to one building. POCO might be fine hooking it up, but its equally a code violation as having 9 disconnects for one service.

 

[JasonCo]

Sorry everyone, but JasonCo hasn't described an installation that qualifies under 230.40 Exception #1. As now quoted in post #42, that exception refers back to 230.2, which allows multiple services for multiple occupancies (section B) "where there is no space for service equipment accessible to all occupants." The OP has shown us a drawing where all the meters are in one location. That location is either accessible to all occupants or it isn't, but additional services are not allowed in the same location to serve ordinary loads.

There is no situation in which the code allows more than 6 service disconnects for ordinary loads in one location.

More of a fine point, but a given meter also may or may not have an individual occupancy attached to it.

I was indeed concerned about that. 230.2(B)(1), I don't think applies to my situation, because there is plenty of outdoor accessible space, and the space that my 9 disconnects are at is accessible by everyone, along with all the other back walls behind this shopping center. Although 230.2(B)(2) some would argue would apply?

(2) A single building or other structure sufficiently large to make two or more services necessary

So what do they mean by single building or other structure. This shopping building is 1 building but consists of multiple "structures" based off multiple lease spaces that each have their own address and firewall barriers.

 

[JasonCo]

@jaggedben what would you consider to be a service? 1 underground service lateral or 1 overhead service drop with 9 disconnects, or are these 9 services grouped together using 1 underground service lateral? In my thinking this is 1 service with 9 disconnects. 3 must be grouped separately, to make it a 2nd service. As far as how, that is something I cannot even fathom at this point. Do I need to install a second service lateral to these last 3 and group them separately. Do I need to just pipe out of the tap box far enough away for the 3 to be considered in their own group, even though I have 1 service lateral feeding these 9. I'm just braindead, maybe I just need sleep and I'll wake up fresh. Been at this all day

 

[jaggedben]

@jaggedben what would you consider to be a service? 1 underground service lateral or 1 overhead service drop with 9 disconnects, or are these 9 services grouped together using 1 underground service lateral? In my thinking this is 1 service with 9 disconnects. 3 must be grouped separately, to make it a 2nd service. As far as how, that is something I cannot even fathom at this point. Do I need to install a second service lateral to these last 3 and group them separately. Do I need to just pipe out of the tap box far enough away for the 3 to be considered in their own group, even though I have 1 service lateral feeding these 9. I'm just braindead, maybe I just need sleep and I'll wake up fresh. Been at this all day

A service is a connection made to and by the utility. See the article 100 definitions. If the utility is terminating one set of wires to your tap box and no other sets of wires anywhere, then you have one service.

You are allowed more than one service only under certain conditions in 230.2. As you've noted, none of those conditions seem to apply to your situation.

You are allowed multiple sets of service entrance conductors for various reasons, see the exceptions to 230.40. Service entrance conductors are sets of conductors that you branch off on your side of the service point, as you are doing from your tap box. For example, under Exception 2, you can have up to six for any reason you like, for each service allowed under 230.2. But exception #1 requires that you are permitted to have more than one service under 230.2, which you don't. Also, note that the occupancy related section of 230.2 starts with 'By special permission', implying that you need prior review and approval from the AHJ, you can't just show them the book at your first inspection. Unless the person you are working for has gotten that, you're on thin ice here, in my opinion.