Article 705, Interconnected Electric Power Production Sources & 230.71 Six Disconnects

[cyriousn]

I know this has been debated in the past but would an IEPPS with a supply side connection count towards the six disconnecting means? I'm looking at an existing service switchboard with 6 existing service disconnects and want to tie into the bus ahead of them. In my opinion I think it's okay but it will ultimately be up to the AHJ and their interpretation of the code. This also happens to be in MA so it's on the 2020 code. From reviewing other threads here it looked like there was a hope that there would be some language added to 705.11 to say it did not count towards the six disconnects but it did not happen. The way I see it is that that the terminology used in 705 such as "Electric Power Production Source" and "Power Source Output Circuit" makes it clear that it is not a service. Interested to hear peoples opinions.

 

[tortuga]

I agree
I believe the IEPPS output conductors are called a 'Power Source Output Circuit' conductor as defined in 705.2 and are not 'service conductors' as defined in 100.

I'm looking at an existing service switchboard with 6 existing service disconnects and want to tie into the bus ahead of them.

230.71 I think only applies to 'service conductors', 705.11 allows you to tap into the service conductors as long as the requirements of 230.82(6) are met.

 

[cyriousn]

I agree
I believe the IEPPS output conductors are called a 'Power Source Output Circuit' conductor as defined in 705.2 and are not 'service conductors' as defined in 100.

230.71 I think only applies to 'service conductors', 705.11 allows you to tap into the service conductors as long as the requirements of 230.82(6) are met.

thanks for the input!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That too, will change in the 2023. Those conductors will be correctly called service conductors in the 2023 code. They are connected directly to the utility and present the same hazards as any other service conductor.

Calling them something else was an attempt to get around some of the service requirements, and was part of a "turf war" between the code panel that has purview over alternate energy systems, and the one that has purview over services. The correlating committee, as is one of their purposes, has ended the turf war and put those conductors and their associated disconnects under the purview of CMP 10 for the 2023 code.

 

[tortuga]

That too, will change in the 2023. Those conductors will be correctly called service conductors in the 2023 code. They are connected directly to the utility and present the same hazards as any other service conductor.

Calling them something else was an attempt to get around some of the service requirements, and was part of a "turf war" between the code panel that has purview over alternate energy systems, and the one that has purview over services. The correlating committee, as is one of their purposes, has ended the turf war and put those conductors and their associated disconnects under the purview of CMP 10 for the 2023 code.

Thats interesting, I am not a fan of line side taps.
I have seen many in the wild. Kinda reminds me of when we used to tap a gutter for every motor.
I wish panel manufacturers would just just make a 300A copper busbar for a 200A loadcenter, probably would eliminate the need for 90% of the line side taps.

 

[cyriousn]

That too, will change in the 2023. Those conductors will be correctly called service conductors in the 2023 code. They are connected directly to the utility and present the same hazards as any other service conductor.

Calling them something else was an attempt to get around some of the service requirements, and was part of a "turf war" between the code panel that has purview over alternate energy systems, and the one that has purview over services. The correlating committee, as is one of their purposes, has ended the turf war and put those conductors and their associated disconnects under the purview of CMP 10 for the 2023 code.

I searched through the Public Input Report of Code Making panel 10 and it appears that Mike Holt submitted a public input to redefine the definition of service conductors, page 25 of 687. I don't see any other available notes on NFPA site though but I'm assuming there have been other meetings since in which it could have been brought up...?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I searched through the Public Input Report of Code Making panel 10 and it appears that Mike Holt submitted a public input to redefine the definition of service conductors, page 25 of 687. I don't see any other available notes on NFPA site though but I'm assuming there have been other meetings since in which it could have been brought up...?

I was sitting in on a meeting between the various panels on this issue and the chair of the task group said a number of times that the Correlating Committee has directed this change. It will likely show up in the second draft report.

There was a PI to 705.11 that would call the disconnect a service disconnect. There was also a new Article 231 that was proposed to cover all of these line side connection. The dispute between CMP 10 and CMP 4 triggered the CC stepping in to resolve purview of this subject matter.
There is a Correlating Committee Note attached to 705.11 that says:

The Correlating Committee directs CMP 10 to reconsider the creation of a new Article 231. The content of the proposed article contains requirements that are redundant with existing requirements within Article 230 and Article 705. A task group has been established consisting of members from CMPs 4, 5, and 10 to review all current and proposed requirements related to the connection of power sources to a service. The task group shall develop public comments based on the following division of CMP responsibilities.

The connection of power source(s) to a service consists of service conductors connected to an additional service or to a connection ahead of the service disconnect(s). The service conductors for the power interconnection must follow the rules in Article 230 for service conductors and terminate in one or more service disconnects. The sizing of the service conductors and the rating of service disconnect(s) based on the number of power sources and calculation of maximum current shall be the responsibility of CMP 4. The remaining responsibilities for service conductor installation remain with CMP 10. Grounding and bonding requirements should remain with CMP 5.

The Correlating Committee also directs CMP 4 to reconsider why the conductors from the service disconnect(s) to one or more power sources should be called power source output circuit conductors instead of feeders. To maintain consistency in the Code and improve its ease of use it is desirable for these conductors to simply follow the rules in Article 215 and Article 225 except as amended by Article 705. The responsibility for modification or amendment of the feeder rules within Article 705 for power sources remains with CMP 4.

Based on the comments from the chair of that task group, the line side stuff will be covered by CMP 10 and the purview of CMP 4 will start at the load side of the disconnect. Of course that is still subject to change even after the Second Revision Report is issues as there could be Certified Amending Motions presented at the annual meeting.

 

[cyriousn]

I was sitting in on a meeting between the various panels on this issue and the chair of the task group said a number of times that the Correlating Committee has directed this change. It will likely show up in the second draft report.

There was a PI to 705.11 that would call the disconnect a service disconnect. There was also a new Article 231 that was proposed to cover all of these line side connection. The dispute between CMP 10 and CMP 4 triggered the CC stepping in to resolve purview of this subject matter.
There is a Correlating Committee Note attached to 705.11 that says:

Based on the comments from the chair of that task group, the line side stuff will be covered by CMP 10 and the purview of CMP 4 will start at the load side of the disconnect. Of course that is still subject to change even after the Second Revision Report is issues as there could be Certified Amending Motions presented at the annual meeting.

I was finally able to get on TerraView and take a look myself.

I was just on the phone for a few hours with someone who said that based on the 2020 Code the connection was permissible based on the following.

230.71B which points to 230.40 Exception 5 which points to 230.82(6).

Their interpretation was that because of the word OR in 230.71B there could be be the six service disconnects and the connection to the IEPPS. I don't really follow though