Can a 200A Breaker Be a Service Disconnect

[kwired]

Because he can turn the breaker off before installing/removing the meter! Duh!

My exeriences is when swapping a meter or even disconnect/reconnect for non payment they seldom turn any main breaker off - particularly if the main is inside the structure. First time energizing new service or if there has been some damage and repairs, they might want main off but even that seems to be hit and miss depending which POCO you are dealing with.

I don't know if any are using smart meters with an ability to disconnect remotely at this time.

 

[jim dungar]

Sure that is different than pulling a meter, but safety citations by OSHA or the Department of Labor are a big deal for fire departments.

And turnout gear does not have an ATPV (arc flash) rating. Flame resistance is about relatively low temperatures for long periods while arc flash is about high temperatures for relatively short periods. This is why OSHA does not consider firefighter and auto racing balaclavas, and other items, as suitable for meeting NFPA 70E.

 

[Greg1707]

Inspector called out my 200A breaker at the meter main as the service disconnect, saying it can’t be an emergency disconnect because it’s an overcurrent device. He wants a non-fused switch instead. any thoughts?

Would it not be a lot simpler if the code simply stated that a "disconnect is required on the exterior of the house"? What is the benefit of labeling something "emergency or service"?

It would then be understood that the disconnect can be installed with either three wires of four and appropriate code provisions will be followed.

 

[kwired]

Would it not be a lot simpler if the code simply stated that a "disconnect is required on the exterior of the house"? What is the benefit of labeling something "emergency or service"?

It would then be understood that the disconnect can be installed with either three wires of four and appropriate code provisions will be followed.

I think there would be similar confusion as there already has been.

I could be wrong but wasn't they going to require outside disconnect in 2026 NEC but it will now have to be the service disconnect?

Before it could be either service disconnect or not the service disconnect. That alone was confusing for some.

 

[Greg1707]

I think there would be similar confusion as there already has been.

I could be wrong but wasn't they going to require outside disconnect in 2026 NEC but it will now have to be the service disconnect?

Before it could be either service disconnect or not the service disconnect. That alone was confusing for some.

It would seem the point is to provide a means to disconnect the power on the outside of the house using appropriate equipment. Is it more complicated than that?

 

[hillbilly1]

My exeriences is when swapping a meter or even disconnect/reconnect for non payment they seldom turn any main breaker off - particularly if the main is inside the structure. First time energizing new service or if there has been some damage and repairs, they might want main off but even that seems to be hit and miss depending which POCO you are dealing with.

I don't know if any are using smart meters with an ability to disconnect remotely at this time.

We have smart meters that have the ability to disconnect remotely. I had a customer call that her power was off, but she was recovering from surgery at her daughters several hours away. Panel was dead, everything in her refrigerator was rotten, power had been off quite a while. Meter had a display, but also had “OP” in the display. Called the poco, they claimed the power was on, I told them the meter said it wasn’t. The operator apparently went to her supervisor, and they told her what it meant, so she returned and said it was off, but couldn’t tell me why (non payment) since I wasn’t the account holder, but I knew why. The customer hadn’t been home in over two months, so she didn’t get her mail. The display will have “CL” in the display when it is turned on. They never jumper meters here, if it appears someone is home, they may knock on the door to let them know the power will be off while they swap meters, but usually just do it.

 

[tortuga]

My exeriences is when swapping a meter or even disconnect/reconnect for non payment they seldom turn any main breaker off - particularly if the main is inside the structure. First time energizing new service or if there has been some damage and repairs, they might want main off but even that seems to be hit and miss depending which POCO you are dealing with.

I don't know if any are using smart meters with an ability to disconnect remotely at this time.

All our meters started to get swapped to smart meters or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) that have the remote disconnect / reconnect over utility wifi back in 2009 then it abruptly halted after someone figured out there is a optical port (Similar to your IR remote control) on the meter that allows access to the meter diagnostic mode and all other meters on the 'secure network', and you can manipulate the power grid tricking it into thinking there was a surge in demand or of course give your friends and neighbors free power or shut off your enemies power.
In some places the FBI had to get involved.
It took almost 10 years for them to get a new secure version and get started again so there is this new generation of smarter more secure meters that a local collage student (OSU) just hacked again, his paper was published in IEEE access (its above my pay grade).
The new secure meters were installed by an outside contractor, the kid that came and did my house had leather gloves and safety goggles and said he got the 'gig' on a gig work app it required a 2 hr training course. My main breaker is indoors and he did not ask me to disconnect it but I did anyway because i happened to be home. Definitely not a lineman.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Would it not be a lot simpler if the code simply stated that a "disconnect is required on the exterior of the house"?

It often takes three code cycles to get new rule correct. The 2026 cycle is the third for this rule, and it does exactly that...the service disconnect for one- or two-family dwellings must be outside the dwelling, either on an exterior surface or within sight of the dwelling in accordance with 110.29.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We have smart meters that have the ability to disconnect remotely. I

One of the three utilities in my area will turn the meter off remotely when they get a call for a dwelling fire from dispatch. They will still send a trouble-man as sometimes the overhead drop needs to be cut at the pole, but with the meter off, there is no power in the house for fire fighting operations.

 

[tortuga]

This thread is a bit long now, however I need to correct myself
Previously I said:

In the past the code has not been really clear on how far service conductors can travel inside a building before reaching the service disconnect

Actually going back to the 1897 NEC it clearly required a OCPD either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they enter the building" rule 21 page 19. Checking the 1920, 1930, 1940 etc the rules move around and the words change over time but the general rule that a service OCPD be either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they (the service conductors) enter the building" has always been in the code.

 

[hillbilly1]

This thread is a bit long now, however I need to correct myself
Previously I said:

Actually going back to the 1897 NEC it clearly required a OCPD either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they enter the building" rule 21 page 19. Checking the 1920, 1930, 1940 etc the rules move around and the words change over time but the general rule that a service OCPD be either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they (the service conductors) enter the building" has always been in the code.

But so many broke that rule! LOL! My old boss bought a house in downtown Atlanta for his daughter. It was probably built in the 60’s, the service came in at the carport, ran across the attic in SE cable, to the other side of the house, then down to the basement, where the meter and panel were!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

"near as possible to the point where they (the service conductors) enter the building"

and what that means is only known to YOUR AHJ. Some will require it exactly where the service conductors, others will permit 10-15'
To avoid questions, our local code specifies a maximum of 10' and requires service conductors to be run in either IMC or RMC. The IMC/RMC requirement applies to all service conductors, inside or outside.

 

[tortuga]

But so many broke that rule! LOL! My old boss bought a house in downtown Atlanta for his daughter. It was probably built in the 60’s, the service came in at the carport, ran across the attic in SE cable, to the other side of the house, then down to the basement, where the meter and panel were!

Yeah its not uncommon here and also in that 60's era homes, it perplexes me how this seems to occur mainly in that vintage of construction, in older buildings like 1920's - 1940's I tend to see large fused disconnect right at the entry point. I have looked in the historic Oregon codes and never found any amendments or exceptions permitting it, as when its discovered the AHJ will issue a order to correct, and I was curious if its was 'code at the time' then I could challenge the order, as it would be grandfathered. but unfortunately if there was an exception it was not codified as an exception here like it is in IL.

and what that means is only known to YOUR AHJ.

As far NEC wording goes "near as possible" combinded with 230.6 does not leave me with any uncertainty.
An AHJ certainly can amend the code and specify otherwise.

 

[kwired]

This thread is a bit long now, however I need to correct myself
Previously I said:

Actually going back to the 1897 NEC it clearly required a OCPD either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they enter the building" rule 21 page 19. Checking the 1920, 1930, 1940 etc the rules move around and the words change over time but the general rule that a service OCPD be either outside or as "near as possible to the point where they (the service conductors) enter the building" has always been in the code.

That near as possible has always been a point of debate and NEC has never given any specific distance. Has led to some local rules stating distances but there are variances in what those local rules are. Some as strict as it must be immediately on other side of a wall where it penetrates to some letting you be 10 or even more feet inside.

That is still the rule for non dwellings, sort of makes little sense to me that we need this emergency disconnect for single family dwellings but everything else is fine with how the rules have been forever. Are single family dwellings more prone to needing emergency responders? Why have we had AFCI's for 25ish years, are they not preventing fires like they were supposed to?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That is still the rule for non dwellings, sort of makes little sense to me that we need this emergency disconnect for single family dwellings but everything else is fine with how the rules have been forever. Are single family dwellings more prone to needing emergency responders? Why have we had AFCI's for 25ish years, are they not preventing fires like they were supposed to?

It just numbers...about 75% of the fires that fire departments respond to are in dwelling units. Some of the proposals for the emergency disconnect would have required it for all structures. I expect that some time in the future, there will be a rule for an emergency shut off for all structures, most likely a remote operated shunt trip device.

As far as AFCIs, it will be a few more decades before they can make a statistical difference, that is if they actually work. This is because the number of dwelling units that existed before any AFCI rules vs the number of dwellings built in areas where AFCIs are required, the staggered implementation of the areas that require AFCI protection, even now not all circuits are AFCI protected, and not even the manufactures will tell you that the AFCI is 100% effective in preventing electrical fires on AFCI protected circuits.
In addition, the fire cause and origin information used to get the AFCIs into the code showed that ~80% of the dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin occurred in dwelling units that were at least 20 years old. The most recent NFPA Fire Research document on dwelling unit fires shows only about 9% of the dwelling fires are said to be of electrical origin. The top two causes are cooking at 49% followed by heating equipment as systems at 20% and then electrical at 9%.

 

[wwhitney]

In addition, the fire cause and origin information used to get the AFCIs into the code showed that ~80% of the dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin occurred in dwelling units that were at least 20 years old.

Wait, aren't ~80% of dwelling units at least 20 years old? In which the above is just the null hypothesis, why does it support installation of AFCIs?

This is an a somewhat imperfect data stand-in, and the data only goes back to 2000, so the comparison at the time of AFCI adoption into the NEC can't be made, but in Q4 2025 there were an estimated 148.7 million housing units in the US, and in Q4 2020 there were an estimated 126.1 million housing units in the US. Obviously there were some old units torn down, and some units subdivided, but to first approximation that means that today 126.1/148.7 = 85% of dwelling units are over 20 years old.

Housing Inventory Estimate: Total Housing Units in the United States

Graph and download economic data for Housing Inventory Estimate: Total Housing Units in the United States (ETOTALUSQ176N) from Q2 2000 to Q4 2025 about inventories, housing, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Cheers, Wayne