Engineering

[DefiantClyde]

Looking for opinions about a recent issue. In Florida, an electrical contractor can engineer the electrical for a building with [FONT=&quot]an aggregate service capacity of 600 amperes (240 volts) or less on a residential electrical system or 800 amperes (240 volts) or less on a commercial or industrial electrical system. I was recently turned down for a permit for work on 277V branch circuits on an existing building. I'm pretty confident that the law was not written to require an engineer's stamp every time somebody pulls a permit to change light fixtures. It was quicker and easier to change our work to 120V circuits than argue this out with the building department.

What's the general consensus here? Does a cap on the service capacity of 240V mean that every branch circuit that is 277V is verboten? Or does the cap on service capacity apply to the original service design only?

There's another part of the same law (that the building department didn't dig their heels in on) that also requires the value of the electrical system to be less than $125,000. If the 240V cap on service capacity applies forever, then the $125,000 would also? I can't think of very many commercial buildings with less than $125,000 worth of electrical work. And then, is it aggregate; if the existing work was $99,000 can you only do an addition worth $25,999?

I wouldn't be asking if every permit over 240V I had applied for had been turned down, but I've designed enough 277V or 480V things that I wonder who is right.


[/FONT]

 

[Dennis Alwon]

First off welcome to the forum

Changing a light fixture is one thing but adding light or receptacles is another. In NC we have an amendment that allows us to change a ballast, replace a receptacle etc. without a permit.

The 125,000 is a limit on new work not what was done. We had a jurisdiction in out state that was saying the same thing. If the building value was XX.XX then you needed an engineer so even to add one receptacle they were saying you needed an engineer. I argued that one and they agreed finally that it was the cost of new work.