Updated an older home from 100amp service with the old fabric-coated wiring to 200a service panel and all new wiring, lighting and outlets as applicable throughout. Also added a 200a outdoor main disconnect at a new carport maintenance bldg that naturally transformed the main service panel in the home to a sub panel. Aside from the small home's modest load requirements, I also added (3) 60a breakers in that main sub panel to feed the same number of new outbuildings and fed them with THHN within sch 80 conduit. Those outbuildings all have standard lighting and outlet provisions with no other loads because of their function. They all have 100a sub panels but 60a breakers was all that I felt was necessary to serve the limited and type of circuits present, interpreting the rating of the panel to be a maximum rather than any requirement to match them with the same amperage breaker.
The lineman for the power company who will be providing new underground service connectors offered that the (3) 60 amp service feeds at the main sub panel in the home are "redundant" and that I should alternatively run a branch circuit out of the main 200a disconnect to the 100a sub panels.
Over the years I've updated a good number of homes to code and I've never once observed a circumstance where a 100a panel can be fed by a branch circuit of a 200a service main disconnect. I even doubt that a 2nd 100a disconnect could be branched from the 200a service disconnect before feeding the 100a sub panels in the manner he describes. Feeding service connectors into any panel beyond its rating has always been strictly non-compliant in my experience, so I don't follow his line of reasoning.
Am I missing something, because as far as I know the very minimum rated panel branched off a 200a main disconnect would need to be 200a before any step-down circuits in the way of 100a sub panels could be fed. I see no need to use a second 200a panel branched at the carport bldg where the main disconnect is located to feed the three sub panels. The (3) 60a at the house main sub panel does not appear "redundant" in my opinion and it is always expected that all circuits of any panel(s) would not be under simultaneous use under normal conditions so I don't consider the house panel to be overloaded as well. I also don't see any evidence of redundancy. Each of the three 100a sub panels has its own ground rod for separate bldgs and a main breaker was not required at those panels because of the limited number of circuits. All of the panels are non-bonded and neutrals insulated. They seem good to go from where I stand, including their feed from the main 200a sub panel inside the home, which is well within total amperage calculations of all loads being fed by that panel.
Am I right or have I somehow missed, or misinterpreted, something allowable in the code with such an arrangement?
I suppose my question is whether the lineman is somehow correct.
The lineman for the power company who will be providing new underground service connectors offered that the (3) 60 amp service feeds at the main sub panel in the home are "redundant" and that I should alternatively run a branch circuit out of the main 200a disconnect to the 100a sub panels.
Over the years I've updated a good number of homes to code and I've never once observed a circumstance where a 100a panel can be fed by a branch circuit of a 200a service main disconnect. I even doubt that a 2nd 100a disconnect could be branched from the 200a service disconnect before feeding the 100a sub panels in the manner he describes. Feeding service connectors into any panel beyond its rating has always been strictly non-compliant in my experience, so I don't follow his line of reasoning.
Am I missing something, because as far as I know the very minimum rated panel branched off a 200a main disconnect would need to be 200a before any step-down circuits in the way of 100a sub panels could be fed. I see no need to use a second 200a panel branched at the carport bldg where the main disconnect is located to feed the three sub panels. The (3) 60a at the house main sub panel does not appear "redundant" in my opinion and it is always expected that all circuits of any panel(s) would not be under simultaneous use under normal conditions so I don't consider the house panel to be overloaded as well. I also don't see any evidence of redundancy. Each of the three 100a sub panels has its own ground rod for separate bldgs and a main breaker was not required at those panels because of the limited number of circuits. All of the panels are non-bonded and neutrals insulated. They seem good to go from where I stand, including their feed from the main 200a sub panel inside the home, which is well within total amperage calculations of all loads being fed by that panel.
Am I right or have I somehow missed, or misinterpreted, something allowable in the code with such an arrangement?
I suppose my question is whether the lineman is somehow correct.