Branch Circuits Ahead of Service Disconnect

S

ShockaBrah

Member
Location
New Hampshire
Occupation
Master Electrician
Okay, so I am trying to wrap my head around this. I am planning a service upgrade (resi, 100A to 200A) ( we are on 2020 code cycle) and I want to install a square D HOM Meter disconnect that also has an 8 circuit bus bar mainly because it is like $250 cheaper than the Milbank. Originally I had planned on marking emergency / service disconnect and running a 4-wire to a main lug panel inside the house, however, this afternoon I discovered that I have an existing 3-wire Range circuit so I cant use the meter enclosure as a SERVICE DISCONNECT and will need to install a MBP. I am trying to decide weather or not it would be acceptable to keep the enclosure, marked as Emergency disconnect not service equipment, run a 3-wire to the MBP marked as service disconnect and make all bonds inside the MBP. It feels wrong to have those extra spaces available ahead of the service disconnect, but as I look at 230.70, the first sentence says "Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors IN a building or structure from the service conductors". It specifically says IN a building not ON (outside) a building. What do you guys think about this? Alsop I am aware that I could potentially run a separate EGC to the Range and change the receptacle and cord but would rather not do that. Although that may be the simplest solution. ANYWAYY, any thoughts are good thoughts.

And as aways thanks in advance.
 
ShockaBrah said:
Okay, so I am trying to wrap my head around this. I am planning a service upgrade (resi, 100A to 200A) ( we are on 2020 code cycle) and I want to install a square D HOM Meter disconnect that also has an 8 circuit bus bar mainly because it is like $250 cheaper than the Milbank. Originally I had planned on marking emergency / service disconnect and running a 4-wire to a main lug panel inside the house, however, this afternoon I discovered that I have an existing 3-wire Range circuit so I cant use the meter enclosure as a SERVICE DISCONNECT and will need to install a MBP. I am trying to decide weather or not it would be acceptable to keep the enclosure, marked as Emergency disconnect not service equipment, run a 3-wire to the MBP marked as service disconnect and make all bonds inside the MBP. It feels wrong to have those extra spaces available ahead of the service disconnect, but as I look at 230.70, the first sentence says "Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors IN a building or structure from the service conductors". It specifically says IN a building not ON (outside) a building. What do you guys think about this? Alsop I am aware that I could potentially run a separate EGC to the Range and change the receptacle and cord but would rather not do that. Although that may be the simplest solution. ANYWAYY, any thoughts are good thoughts.

And as aways thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Can you use the 250.140 exception? if the grounded conductor is insulated the 3 wire feed doesn’t have to originate at the service . If it’s fed with a 3 wire se cable with bare grounded conductor, install a meter and seperate 200 amp disconnect outside labeled emergency disconnect not service equipment and make the indoor main breaker panel the service disconnect and you satisfy 230.85 as long as the equipment is listed for the application
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3245.png
    IMG_3245.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 2
Is it that big of an issue to get a 4 wire cable up to the range? You not required to change it AFAIK but while the work is being done it would be the thing to do. If the basement is finished that could be an issue.
 
ShockaBrah said:
Okay, so I am trying to wrap my head around this. I am planning a service upgrade (resi, 100A to 200A) ( we are on 2020 code cycle) and I want to install a square D HOM Meter disconnect that also has an 8 circuit bus bar mainly because it is like $250 cheaper than the Milbank. Originally I had planned on marking emergency / service disconnect and running a 4-wire to a main lug panel inside the house, however, this afternoon I discovered that I have an existing 3-wire Range circuit so I cant use the meter enclosure as a SERVICE DISCONNECT and will need to install a MBP. I am trying to decide weather or not it would be acceptable to keep the enclosure, marked as Emergency disconnect not service equipment, run a 3-wire to the MBP marked as service disconnect and make all bonds inside the MBP. It feels wrong to have those extra spaces available ahead of the service disconnect, but as I look at 230.70, the first sentence says "Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors IN a building or structure from the service conductors". It specifically says IN a building not ON (outside) a building. What do you guys think about this? Alsop I am aware that I could potentially run a separate EGC to the Range and change the receptacle and cord but would rather not do that. Although that may be the simplest solution. ANYWAYY, any thoughts are good thoughts.

And as aways thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Btw all the meter main /loadcenter’s I’ve come across have been listed for use as service equipment only, and to my knowledge every meter main on the market now with or without the loadcenter is listed that way , so if you used that setup that would need to be the service disconnect location as well per 110.3(b) , like you said path of least resistance may be use 250.130(c) and just run the egc to outlet location
 
Eddie702 said:
Is it that big of an issue to get a 4 wire cable up to the range? You not required to change it AFAIK but while the work is being done it would be the thing to do. If the basement is finished that could be an issue
Click to expand...
We'll considering the cost of 6/3 yeah it's kind of a huge issue...that would be the absolute last thing I want to do... I mean if it were my house of course I would (no i wouldn't haha) but I can't tell the customer they have to pay an extra $800 for me to Refeed their range..
Jaybone812 said:
Btw all the meter main /loadcenter’s I’ve come across have been listed for use as service equipment only, and to my knowledge every meter main on the market now with or without the loadcenter is listed that way , so if you used that setup that would need to be the service disconnect location as well per 110.3(b) , like you said path of least resistance may be use 250.130(c) and just run the egc to outlet location
Click to expand...
I think that may be the easiest thing to do. And to my understanding, just because a piece of equipment is listed as service rated it does not have to necessarily be utilized as service equipment, it all comes down to how you label things and where you place the main bonding jumper.
 
Jaybone812 said:
Btw all the meter main /loadcenter’s I’ve come across have been listed for use as service equipment only, and to my knowledge every meter main on the market now with or without the loadcenter is listed that way , so if you used that setup that would need to be the service disconnect location as well per 110.3(b) , like you said path of least resistance may be use 250.130(c) and just run the egc to outlet location
Click to expand...

ShockaBrah said:
I think that may be the easiest thing to do. And to my understanding, just because a piece of equipment is listed as service rated it does not have to necessarily be utilized as service equipment, it all comes down to how you label things and where you place the main bonding jumper.
Click to expand...
Point @Jaybone812 makes is these meter disconnects if they are marked as "use as service equipment only" they would be internally N/G bonded and that bonding can not be removed, not just "service rated" where usually has a bonding screw that can be removed. Which puts you back to issue of the range only having 3 rather than 4 wire.

Not sure why electricians seem to be the only trade out there that seems to be more concerned over "but it will cost more" to fix right than other trades. A mechanic would simply put it "that is what it is going to cost to fix and if you don't like it too bad". Same with plumbers, want your toilet to flush this is what it will cost.
 
Fred B said:
Point @Jaybone812 makes is these meter disconnects if they are marked as "use as service equipment only" they would be internally N/G bonded and that bonding can not be removed, not just "service rated" where usually has a bonding screw that can be removed. Which puts you back to issue of the range only having 3 rather than 4 wire.

Not sure why electricians seem to be the only trade out there that seems to be more concerned over "but it will cost more" to fix right than other trades. A mechanic would simply put it "that is what it is going to cost to fix and if you don't like it too bad". Same with plumbers, want your toilet to flush this is what it will cost.
Click to expand...
Well I am trying to "fix it right" that's why we are having this discussion. And I think the reason that's the way that it is is because, people NEED to have their toilet flush, they NEED their car to get to work, they don't like to spend money on some invisible magic behind their walls... Their stove works perfectly fine now, and will work exactly the same after they spend $800 to "Fix" it... Its a hard sell. Especially when and if there are other more cost effective routes that may accomplish the same thing, like installing a single #10 EGC vs replacing an entire 6/3 cable.

And yes i don't think you would remove the MBJ at the meter you would just not have a seperate ground so whether or not the screw was in place wouldn't matter because there still wouldn't be anything being bonded, this is my thinking though, I am still trying to decide.
 
If you are calling the main of this combination device an emergency disconnect only, then that makes any other breakers installed in said combination device service disconnecting means, and opens a can of worms with number of service disconnects allowed, location/grouping of service disconnecting means, plus you no longer can have multiple service disconnecting means within same enclosure or switchboard section.

In essence the main in such combination device has to be the service disconnecting means.

Side note: you also wouldn't be able to use 310.12 alternate conductor selection for dwelling units for the inside panel as it is no longer supplying the entire load of the dwelling if you would have any circuits supplied by the outdoor combo unit.
 
kwired said:
If you are calling the main of this combination device an emergency disconnect only, then that makes any other breakers installed in said combination device service disconnecting means, and opens a can of worms with number of service disconnects allowed, location/grouping of service disconnecting means, plus you no longer can have multiple service disconnecting means within same enclosure or switchboard section.

In essence the main in such combination device has to be the service disconnecting means.

Side note: you also wouldn't be able to use 310.12 alternate conductor selection for dwelling units for the inside panel as it is no longer supplying the entire load of the dwelling if you would have any circuits supplied by the outdoor combo unit.
Click to expand...
That makes sense and ultimatley is the answer to my original question. I guess the only question I have for you is can you point me to a code section(s) where you are finding the information you used to determine that? But what if the are no breakers installed in the outdoor enclosure aside from the main breaker (if wanted to be used as an emergency only)? And also yes code point about 310.12.
 
I think that I will do the installation as originally stated, using the meter enclosure as emergency and service disconnect, then run a #10 from the dryer receptacle (located in the basement underneath the range) up to a new 4-wire range receptacle, replace the cord and remove the bonding strap in the range in compliance with 250.130 (C) (4). That is seeming like the best solution, but I really appreciate everyone's input on this discussion as it has helped me clear up the emergency/service disconnect issue which has thrown me off for awhile now.
 
ShockaBrah said:
That makes sense and ultimatley is the answer to my original question. I guess the only question I have for you is can you point me to a code section(s) where you are finding the information you used to determine that? But what if the are no breakers installed in the outdoor enclosure aside from the main breaker (if wanted to be used as an emergency only)? And also yes code point about 310.12.
Click to expand...
The art 100 definitions of service, feeder and branch circuits and a little logic is the code sections to start with. You can't really make any kind of tap from a service conductor without calling that switch/overcurrent protection a service disconnecting means per those definitions, which then kicks in other related code sections like grouping of service disconnecting means.

Can you do this with no other breakers in the outdoor enclosure? I guess code doesn't directly say no to that, but you have set it up to be tempting for someone to add a circuit from there down the road and that will create the problems mentioned before when they do so. Combination device with single main breaker is at very least the better suggestion code wise.
 
kwired said:
The art 100 definitions of service, feeder and branch circuits and a little logic is the code sections to start with. You can't really make any kind of tap from a service conductor without calling that switch/overcurrent protection a service disconnecting means per those definitions, which then kicks in other related code sections like grouping of service disconnecting means.

Can you do this with no other breakers in the outdoor enclosure? I guess code doesn't directly say no to that, but you have set it up to be tempting for someone to add a circuit from there down the road and that will create the problems mentioned before when they do so. Combination device with single main breaker is at very least the better suggestion code wise.
Click to expand...
Thank you, very good information ( and logic).
 
Fred B said:
Point @Jaybone812 makes is these meter disconnects if they are marked as "use as service equipment only" they would be internally N/G bonded and that bonding can not be removed, not just "service rated" where usually has a bonding screw that can be removed. Which puts you back to issue of the range only having 3 rather than 4 wire.

Not sure why electricians seem to be the only trade out there that seems to be more concerned over "but it will cost more" to fix right than other trades. A mechanic would simply put it "that is what it is going to cost to fix and if you don't like it too bad". Same with plumbers, want your toilet to flush this is what it will cost.
Click to expand...
Agree. Rewiring the range with 4 wire unless it is difficult due to the building finish is the thing to do. Why not bring th range up to current code?

Why the race to the bottom? A plumber would say this is what needs to be done and this is the cost.
 
tom baker said:
The 3 wire 4 wire and emergency disconnect is s challenging issue to explain to home owners as it works now.
Click to expand...
So challenging that 230.85 will not be in the 2026 code. The code will simply require that the service disconnect for one- and two-family dwellings be outside either on the building or within sight from the building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top