Emergency Disconnects Again

[infinity]

I'm curious what everyone is using when an emergency disconnect is required for a one family dwelling. I see that for less than $200 a 200 amp Square D QO outdoor circuit breaker and enclosure can be purchased instead of a non-fuses disconnect. Can this be used as the EM disconnect keeping the service disconnect as the main in the panel located inside? IMO it complies with 230.85(3).

230.85 Emergency Disconnects.
For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily
accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:
(1) Service disconnects marked as follows:
EMERGENCY DISCONNECT,
SERVICE DISCONNECT
(2) Meter disconnects installed per 230.82(3) and marked as follows:
EMERGENCY DISCONNECT,
METER DISCONNECT,
NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT
(3) Other listed disconnect switches or circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked as follows:
EMERGENCY DISCONNECT,
NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT
Markings shall comply with 110.21(B).

 

[ActionDave]

Sure it can.

As far as what everyone is using, where I'm from there have been outside disconnects as long as there has been power to buildings. It's the main reason I find all the hysteria over having them so amusing. Almost every new house since the late 80's would have a 200A main breaker panel with eight circuits and feed through lugs to a panel inside the house.

 

[Little Bill]

I find it strange that if you have a disconnect outside, w/OCPD, then that is the service disconnect and the bonding happens there. The panel in the house is now a subpanel and can't be bonded. Now stick signage on it saying "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" and magically you can keep the inside panel bonded and is not a subpanel.

 

[infinity]

I find it strange that if you have a disconnect outside, w/OCPD, then that is the service disconnect and the bonding happens there. The panel in the house is now a subpanel and can't be bonded. Now stick signage on it saying "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" and magically you can keep the inside panel bonded and is not a subpanel.

That's the exact scenario. 200 amp service replacement where all of the original GEC's end at the service panel that is now inside. If the service disconnect is moved to the outside then the GEC's have to get relocated. Personally I would think that a simple 200 amp, 3R disconnect switch outside would be simpler but when you look at the cost the 200 amp CB is cheaper.

 

[LarryFine]

As far as what everyone is using, where I'm from there have been outside disconnects as long as there has been power to buildings. It's the main reason I find all the hysteria over having them so amusing. Almost every new house since the late 80's would have a 200A main breaker panel with eight circuits and feed through lugs to a panel inside the house.

I have rarely seen feed-through panels here, maybe one or two in fifty years. Maybe because Richmond is an "older" area when it comes to electrification.

They make sense to me, with more exterior circuits these days, especially if they can be located where convenient to supply EVs, sheds, garages, HVAC, etc.

 

[LarryFine]

I find it strange that if you have a disconnect outside, w/OCPD, then that is the service disconnect and the bonding happens there. The panel in the house is now a subpanel and can't be bonded. Now stick signage on it saying "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" and magically you can keep the inside panel bonded and is not a subpanel.

So the signage does permit the outside disconnect to contain OCP and still allow a 3-wire feed and inside GEC connection?

 

[infinity]

So the signage does permit the outside disconnect to contain OCP and still allow a 3-wire feed and inside GEC connection?

That is my interpretation based on the section mentioned in the OP, but I wanted a few opinions.

 

[LarryFine]

So the signage does permit the outside disconnect to contain OCP and still allow a 3-wire feed and inside GEC connection?

Here's a sub-question: Was my (intentional) use of the word "feed" rather than "feeder" accurate? Would a feeder have to be 4-wire?

 

[Little Bill]

I have rarely seen feed-through panels here, maybe one or two in fifty years. Maybe because Richmond is an "older" area when it comes to electrification.

They make sense to me, with more exterior circuits these days, especially if they can be located where convenient to supply EVs, sheds, garages, HVAC, etc.

You should see them on mobile homes. Unless you're smart and stay away from them!

 

[ActionDave]

So the signage does permit the outside disconnect to contain OCP and still allow a 3-wire feed and inside GEC connection?

Yes it does.

Here's a sub-question: Was my (intentional) use of the word "feed" rather than "feeder" accurate? Would a feeder have to be 4-wire?

No fourth wire required.

 

[Little Bill]

If you put in a generator, could you label an ATS an emergency disconnect, not service equipment, and keep the inside panel the main?

 

[ActionDave]

I find it strange that if you have a disconnect outside, w/OCPD, then that is the service disconnect and the bonding happens there. The panel in the house is now a subpanel and can't be bonded. Now stick signage on it saying "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" and magically you can keep the inside panel bonded and is not a subpanel.

More than strange it's dumb. You take 60 years of a clear point in the wiring where the main bonding jumper belongs and toss it away because of someone's pet project to get an emergency disconnect rule written.

 

[ActionDave]

I have rarely seen feed-through panels here, maybe one or two in fifty years. Maybe because Richmond is an "older" area when it comes to electrification.

They make sense to me, with more exterior circuits these days, especially if they can be located where convenient to supply EVs, sheds, garages, HVAC, etc.

Exactly. They are great. Never had anyone complain about them. Met a lot of people that wish they had them.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That is my interpretation based on the section mentioned in the OP, but I wanted a few opinions.

That is the very intent of the rules in 230.85. You could install an outside disconnect and mark it "emergency disconnect, not service disconnect" and use a 3 wire feed to the actual service disconnect.


Based on CMP 10 task group action on various proposals related to 230.85, this will go away in the 2026 code and the code will simply require that the service disconnect for one and two family dwellings be located outside in a readily accessible location on or within sight of the dwelling. This change is based on all of the confusion with the 3 types of emergency disconnects in the 2020 and 2023 code. Note that this was only task group action and any change will require a 2/3s volt of all of the panel members to become a change.

 

[LarryFine]

Yes it does.

No fourth wire required.

Additional clarification: In that case, would said conductors be service or feeder conductors?

It seems they'd have to be service conductors for everything else to remain in the inside panel.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Additional clarification: In that case, would said conductors be service or feeder conductors?

It seems they'd have to be service conductors for everything else to remain in the inside panel.

Yes they are service conductors until you get to the actual service disconnect.

 

[LarryFine]

Yes they are service conductors until you get to the actual service disconnect.

We would have the option of landing electrode conductors there, wouldn't we?

It would sure make at least the outside ones easier.

The "nearest point of entrance" requirements still apply inside, though, correct?

 

[infinity]

We would have the option of landing electrode conductors there, wouldn't we?

It would sure make at least the outside ones easier.

The "nearest point of entrance" requirements still apply inside, though, correct?

You could land GEC's in the emergency disconnect even if the service disconnect were further downstream.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

We haven't adopted the 2020 code for residential yet but I would just install a feed thru main breaker panel on the outside. These panels have a few breaker spaces also.

 

[texie]

This whole 230.85 thing is a hot mess. And in the 2023 edition they just made the mess worse. Here is a little known detail that the craziness of allowing the the emergency disco. to not be the service equipment has created. If you use a meter/main combo as your emergency disconnect then you don't have the option of making it only the emergency disco and making an inside main the service disco.
The reason is all meter/main combo units are factory bonded and as such are marked "suitable for use ONLY as service Equipment" The ironic thig is if you used an enclosed breaker marked SUSE it would be OK, even if you used the main bonding jumper just to comply with 250.92.
They just need to do as Don mentions in post #14.