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

[jaggedben]

What is it that makes it a mistake in your eyes.

The requirement only needs to apply to structures supplied by services. If the service disconnect is remote from the building then the building is supplied by a feeder, and the issue of an emergency disconnect must be addressed by another article (225, which could be mentioned in an informational note). The mistake is to conflate these two situations and seemingly prohibit a feeder supplying a structure from being longer than 50ft. It is a failure of logic and clarity in the code writing.

You have made it clear that you want the feeder breaker at the Service Equipment 100 feet of more from the fire involved structure to be code acceptable to reduce your costs. You refuse to see the value of firefighters lives as possibly more important to public interest than the cost of a building disconnect.

You completely failed to understand the thread of the conversation. Please don't attribute opinions to me because of this failure on your part. For the record, that is completely not what I think.

 

[hornetd]

The requirement only needs to apply to structures supplied by services. If the service disconnect is remote from the building then the building is supplied by a feeder, and the issue of an emergency disconnect must be addressed by another article (225, which could be mentioned in an informational note). The mistake is to conflate these two situations and seemingly prohibit a feeder supplying a structure from being longer than 50ft. It is a failure of logic and clarity in the code writing.

You seem to believe that there cannot be an additional disconnect in a feeder that is between its source breaker and its load end. Why would that make sense to you? If it's a code structure objection only then why do you keep bringing it up repeatedly? don_resqcapt19 has already mentioned that you have enough time to prepare a proposal for the 2026 code cycle. No one on the Code Making Panels which are responsible for the 2 different sections of the code is going to push an interim amendment to correct a misplaced provision. If there is some danger or difficulty that you feel the existing rule is causing then argue for an interim amendment to correct it. You've been leaning on this in more than one forum so it must have some import to you but you have not made it clear what the actual problem is. As I already said buildings that are supplied by a feeder have been required to have a building disconnecting means for decades. The code is about to allow the building disconnect to be somewhere other than "Nearest the point of entry." It will no longer be required to be located on or in the building. It's still one disconnect we'll just have more choices as to where it can be mounted. It will now be permitted to be located off of the structure if it is within sight of the building. That is defined as visible and within 50 feet. Were is the problem.

Tom Horne

 

[jaggedben]

You seem to believe that there cannot be an additional disconnect in a feeder that is between its source breaker and its load end. Why would that make sense to you?
If it's a code structure objection only then why do you keep bringing it up repeatedly? don_resqcapt19 has already mentioned that you have enough time to prepare a proposal for the 2026 code cycle. No one on the Code Making Panels which are responsible for the 2 different sections of the code is going to push an interim amendment to correct a misplaced provision.

Go back and read posts #6 and #11 again, carefully. You are still not following the discussion. The entire sub-discussion you are talking about regards a first draft (i.e. proposed) revision to the 2026 code. And you are incorrect that I can submit a comment for 2026 now, the deadline for that was a few weeks ago.

If there is some danger or difficulty that you feel the existing rule is causing then argue for an interim amendment to correct it. You've been leaning on this in more than one forum so it must have some import to you but you have not made it clear what the actual problem is. ...

I have no idea what other forum you're talking about. If I'm disappointed in some sloppy code writing and spend too much time shooting the !$@$ about it on this forum (like a few others here) what's it to you? If you don't stop insinuating I have further motives, in an innaccurate and potentially defamatory manner, I'm going to report your posts and ask the moderators to delete the last few posts back to where you joined this thread.

 

[hornetd]

You completely failed to understand the thread of the conversation. Please don't attribute opinions to me because of this failure on your part. For the record, that is completely not what I think.

I read every posting in this thread prior to replying. I don't think I "completely failed to understand the thread of the conversation." Since it is plain that you don't want to be questioned about your motivation for finding fault with the actual rule change I will stick to persisting in asking the questions about the changes themselves. What does it keep an electrician from doing or that it forces them to do that you find abhorrent? If you won't answer that question without trying to hide behind something that the Correlating Committee, which is responsible for uniformity of language and appropriateness of of a provisions place in the code, may have simply missed.

"For the record, that is completely not what I think." Then I apologize for casting aspersions on your motivations. As a Firefighter with 45 years of service to my community I have developed the, possibly bad, habit of suspecting the motives of those that fight anything that is proposed for the safety of firefighters. The reason has so often come down to money that I now tend to conclude that it is always about avoiding the cost that human safety has that will cut into profit even to the slightest degree.

Requiring residential sprinklers is too expensive in spite of the thousands of lives it would save and the millions of dollars spent on manual suppression that could be saved out of local government budgets and therefore taxes.

Requiring an on site water supply for homes built on the less expensive land outside of the hydranted area is taking the food out of the mouths of the developers' children.

Forbidding the construction of new homes without the provision of water mains, libraries, schools, recreation centers, adequate road networks for those residents to get to work and all the other places they have to go, and YES fire stations to protect those homes, is communism and a deep state conspiracy. The developers being forced to pay the whole costs of what they build is SOCIALISM.

I volunteered to suppress the fires which broke out in my community and to get stable patients to good care for 45 years. The pushback we got on any new fire safety provisions during that time has made me suspicious of the motivations of people who always oppose any improvement in community safety unless it will not cost them a penny. By there fruits shall ye know them.

I ask you again. What is your objection to allowing the Service or Building Disconnect of dwellings to be up to 50 feet away instead of in or on the building? If that is not the issue what is your objection to limiting the distance that a building or service disconnect may be from a dwelling? Why is it such a travesty to allow the only required disconnect for the power to a dwelling unit to be no more than 50 feet. What harm is being done?

There should be no distance limit on supplying a dwelling with a feeder,

Why not? This is the heart of the matter on this dispute. Why are you opposed to there being a limit to the distance a dwelling's service or feeder disconnect may be from the structure. It allows the electricians to install the disconnecting means for either type of supply somewhere other than on or in the building. It does not require an additional disconnect so why is it so awful.

Tom Horne

 

[wwhitney]

What does it keep an electrician from doing or that it forces them to do that you find abhorrent?

The issue is spelled out in post #12. The proposed text for 2026 NEC 230.70(A)(2) should start off with "For one and two-family dwellings supplied by service conductors, . . ."

That is clearly what is intended, and I think many would read Article 230 as only applying buildings supplied by services. But it is possible to read 230.70(A)(2) as covering any one or two family dwelling, whether it is supplied by a feeder or a service. I.e. the service disconnect for any one or two family dwelling must be within 50' of the building. You would not be allowed,say, to have a service disconnect at the edge of your property and build a house more than 50 feet away, even if you provide a 225.41 disconnect on the outside of the dwelling unit.

This is a sufficiently ridiculous result that I don't think any edit is really necessary, as no one will entertain applying such an interpretation, but spelling this out can only improve clarity.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ActionDave]

I'm sure this topic will come up again but it will have to be in a new thread. This one is closed.