Can someone please answer this for me once and for all about the emergency disconnects

[Leagle454]

Ever since the 2020 code update I have always done residentrial services upgrades as followed.

• SEU from underground or from a service drop in the meter.
• From the meter's load side SEU leaves and enters a 200Amp disconnect like these

  https://imgur.com/a/v0AVr9P

  .
• Then it converts to SER to the panel inside the house
• All grounds from the GEC are ran to the disconnect and bonded together with the grounded neutral conductors.
• All grounds and neutrals are separated for the inside panel.

Now Ive seen that you can use SEU for the entire install so,

• SEU to meter
• SEU to disconnect
• Instead of converting to SER on the load side of the disconnect it stays as SEU
• SEU into the panel
• The disconnect can is bonded to the grounded neutral conductors with those little ground conductor that turn horizontal and connect to the ground bar.
• The panel inside get all the neutrals and grounds bonded together along with the gas and water EGCs and the GEC
• The disconnect gets labeled "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT"

What is right, wrong, why is it OK to do the later install just because you change the label to emergency disconnect instead of service disconnect?

Why is it OK to do the later install if the grounds need to be terminated at the first means of disconnect?

Does labeling the disconnect "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT" create a work around?

 

[infinity]

As long as the label says Emergency Disconnect, Not Service Equipment you can use SEU for the entire run to the panel.

 

[ptonsparky]

It is kind of amazing how a label changes everything form 'thou shalt not' to "Oh, Ok'.

 

[shortcircuit2]

As long as the label says Emergency Disconnect, Not Service Equipment you can use SEU for the entire run to the panel.

As long as the disconnect is listed as SUSE rated, this is permitted per 230.85(3)

If the disconnect is listed (UL-231) as Suitable ONLY for Use as Service Equipment, the only option is to use it as "Service Equipment" per 230.85(1) and must be labeled Emergency Disconnect-Service Disconnect and 4-wire in with neutrals and grounds separate in the downstream distribution equipment.

The switch in post 1 appears to be one that can be used per 230.85(3) ... but if the owner wants to add a whole house generator in the future you will have a problem with the 4-wire feeder from the generator feeding into the 3-wire SEU at the transfer switch.

 

[infinity]

If the disconnect is listed (UL-231) as Suitable ONLY for Use as Service Equipment, the only option is to use it as "Service Equipment" per 230.85(1) and must be labeled Emergency Disconnect-Service Disconnect and 4-wire in with neutrals and grounds separate in the downstream distribution equipment.

Which is silly because the neutral would be bonded in either scenario.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The code making panel has come to realize that the rule in 230.85 can be difficult to deal with and is confusing.
230.85 will be removed from the 2026 code and new language in 230.70(A)(2) will simply require that the service disconnect for one and two-family dwellings be outside.

230.70(A)(2) One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
Service disconnects shall be installed in a readily accessible outdoor location on or within sight of the one- or two-family dwelling unit.

Note that this also clears up the question of how far the service disconnect can be from the dwelling by requiring it within sight of the dwelling.
The language is 110.29 tells us that within in sight is no more than 50' from the dwelling.
(this is the first draft language, but it appears very likely this will be in the 2026 code.)

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

Ever since the 2020 code update I have always done residentrial services upgrades as followed.

• SEU from underground or from a service drop in the meter.
• From the meter's load side SEU leaves and enters a 200Amp disconnect like these

  https://imgur.com/a/v0AVr9P

  .
• Then it converts to SER to the panel inside the house
• All grounds from the GEC are ran to the disconnect and bonded together with the grounded neutral conductors.
• All grounds and neutrals are separated for the inside panel.

Now Ive seen that you can use SEU for the entire install so,

• SEU to meter
• SEU to disconnect
• Instead of converting to SER on the load side of the disconnect it stays as SEU
• SEU into the panel
• The disconnect can is bonded to the grounded neutral conductors with those little ground conductor that turn horizontal and connect to the ground bar.
• The panel inside get all the neutrals and grounds bonded together along with the gas and water EGCs and the GEC
• The disconnect gets labeled "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT"

What is right, wrong, why is it OK to do the later install just because you change the label to emergency disconnect instead of service disconnect?

Why is it OK to do the later install if the grounds need to be terminated at the first means of disconnect?

Does labeling the disconnect "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT" create a work around?

Sometimes the Code, which attempts to be all inclusive, all-knowing, and infallible in any and all situations, runs head on into real life, and then it looks a little funny.

 

[LarryFine]

230.85 will be removed from the 2026 code and new language in 230.70(A)(2) will simply require that the service disconnect for one and two-family dwellings be outside.

Does that eliminate being able to have three conductors past that point in all situations?

 

[infinity]

Does that eliminate being able to have three conductors past that point in all situations?

It sounds like it does which for service upgrades can create additional work when the GEC's are too short to extend to the outside disconnect. Not to mention the need for an extra feeder conductor.

 

[ActionDave]

The code making panel has come to realize that the rule in 230.85 can be difficult to deal with and is confusing.

Came to realize?? It was obvious from the start.

 

[jaggedben]

...

Note that this also clears up the question of how far the service disconnect can be from the dwelling by requiring it within sight of the dwelling.
...

This is wrongheaded. There should be no distance limit on supplying a dwelling with a feeder, since 225 already requires a disconnect for a feeder. If they want that feeder to have an outside disconnect for 1-2 family dwellings that belongs in 225. I hope there is some sort of exception covering this.

 

[wwhitney]

This is wrongheaded. There should be no distance limit on supplying a dwelling with a feeder, since 225 already requires a disconnect for a feeder.

I see that 2026 First Draft 230.70(A)(2) could be interpreted to apply to a dwelling supplied by a feeder, rather than only applying to dwellings supplied by service conductors. There is a PC in for the second draft that proposes an exception:

"Exception: The service disconnect for one- and two-family dwellings is not required to be installed on or within sight of the one- or two-family dwelling unit when the requirements of 225.41 are met."

225.41 is the requirement for an emergency disconnect for one and two-family dwellings supplied by a feeder.

Personally, I think 230.70(A)(2) should just be amended to start off "For one and two family dwellings supplied by service conductors, . . ." Until I read your comment, I figured that was implicit.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Does that eliminate being able to have three conductors past that point in all situations?

It is. All one and two-family disconnects will be outside and will be required to be marked: "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT".
There is an exception to moving the disconnect outside if only meter sockets, service entrance conductors, or related raceways and fittings are replaced. If you do more than that, you will have to install an outside disconnect.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I see that 2026 First Draft 230.70(A)(2) could be interpreted to apply to a dwelling supplied by a feeder, rather than only applying to dwellings supplied by service conductors. There is a PC in for the second draft that proposes an exception:

"Exception: The service disconnect for one- and two-family dwellings is not required to be installed on or within sight of the one- or two-family dwelling unit when the requirements of 225.41 are met."

225.41 is the requirement for an emergency disconnect for one and two-family dwellings supplied by a feeder.

Personally, I think 230.70(A)(2) should just be amended to start off "For one and two family dwellings supplied by service conductors, . . ." Until I read your comment, I figured that was implicit.

Cheers, Wayne

Nothing in Article 230 applies to feeders that supply anything.

230.1 Scope.
This article covers service conductors and equipment for control and protection of services not over 1000 volts ac or 1500 volts dc, nominal and their installation requirements.

225.41 covers one and two-family dwelling units supplied by a feeder.

 

[wwhitney]

Nothing in Article 230 applies to feeders that supply anything.

Correct. But you can read the new text in 230.70(A)(2) as applying to any service that supplies a one or two family dwelling, either directly or indirectly by supplying the feeder conductors that actually go to the building.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

I thought the original intent was to have outside place for emergency services (like firefighters) to be able to disconnect electrical service from the dwelling?

Seems they are making this a lot more complex than it needs to be to meet that original intention. IMO a simple button on exterior to operate a shunt trip main should be an allowable option to meet this intent, but CMP's like to complicate things from the start with certain changes, then figure out all the potential misunderstandings, make a change or two the next cycle and then repeat again in the third cycle for many topics that have come up in more recent editions.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Correct. But you can read the new text in 230.70(A)(2) as applying to any service that supplies a one or two family dwelling, either directly or indirectly by supplying the feeder conductors that actually go to the building.

Cheers, Wayne

Once it becomes a feeder, Article 230 does not apply, so it can't be read that way.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I thought the original intent was to have outside place for emergency services (like firefighters) to be able to disconnect electrical service from the dwelling?

Seems they are making this a lot more complex than it needs to be to meet that original intention. IMO a simple button on exterior to operate a shunt trip main should be an allowable option to meet this intent, but CMP's like to complicate things from the start with certain changes, then figure out all the potential misunderstandings, make a change or two the next cycle and then repeat again in the third cycle for many topics that have come up in more recent editions.

The intent is that there are no energized conductors inside the structure when you open the emergency disconnect. An exterior button that operates a switch or breaker inside the structure does not accomplish that. The worst case for the first responders is energized service conductors inside the building and the external disconnect eliminates those.

 

[jaggedben]

Nothing in Article 230 applies to feeders that supply anything.

225.41 covers one and two-family dwelling units supplied by a feeder.

Then article 230 needn't and shouldn't say anything about service disconnects being 'within sight' or any other implicit or explicit distance limit, because such installations are covered by 225.41 At most. 230 should have an IN pointing to 225.41 for clarity.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Then article 230 needn't and shouldn't say anything about service disconnects being 'within sight' or any other implicit or explicit distance limit, because such installations are covered by 225.41 At most. 230 should have an IN pointing to 225.41 for clarity.

The scope of 230 permits it to specify where the service disconnect is located. However the feeder conductors between that remote service disconnect and the building or structure would be within the purview of Article 225.

You have plenty of time to work up a Public Input for the 2029 code to fix this perceived problem...they will be due in September of 2026.