Meter Panelboard

Status
Not open for further replies.
The lugs will have to be rated for the number of conductors terminated
Keep in mind the "six disconnect rule"
A load calculation might well be required.

Care will need to be taken on terminating the 200 amp cable on the 100 amp equipment.
 
augie47 said:
The lugs will have to be rated for the number of conductors terminated
Keep in mind the "six disconnect rule"
A load calculation might well be required.

Care will need to be taken on terminating the 200 amp cable on the 100 amp equipment.
Click to expand...
TY. Let me explain the sit I find myself in for those scratching their heads over my recent posts. 1. I am not a licensed electrician but have extensive experience in entertainment under article 520 NEC. You know the one that allows you to break all the rules set forth elsewhere in the text. Therefore I am not well versed as I should be. Hence my basic questions.
I live on the property of a small but growing resort in Belize. Here in Belize it seems anyone willing to risk shock is an electrician. Also enforcement is non existent. The complex currently has 6 residences, a bar and the owners hope to build more. Unfortunately their electrical infrastructure was installed by a wanna be, making use of secondhand materials. The noted 100A service/meter feeds via 1100ft of overhead 2/0 AL cable which is buried, a 4 meter 200A panelboard. Distro to non metered buildings is via the main lugs (each buss has 2 sized for 2/0) one is the service feed the other currently has 5 cables of various sizes #2, 4, 6. Shortly after I arrived and after addition of a new AC unit they experienced a burnout on the mains. Corrosion of the uninsulated neutral and subsequent heat burnt one of the lines. To locate the issue we dug about 350' upstream of the panelboard, brought the cables above ground and spliced in a raintight. The soil here is insanely acidic, AL exposed is wasted in months. As cost is of concern to the owners we replaced, reburied only the the cables to the panelboard w 2/0 AL triplex. That was a year ago. The bar then added a number of coolers, lighting etc. Based on my overestimated load eval things seemed well within the service limits. Recently we noted voltage drop effecting the entire complex when the bars cooler compressors cycled. Voltage readings at the service ent., cable splice, panelboard implied we were experiencing another burnout upstream of the splice, but I was concerned as the noted drop, 15-20v, could be due the cable resistance if we were near service capacity. Hence I contracted a lic electrician who had a clampon to get actual current readings. 47A one leg 34A the other. So seemingly loading isn't the major issue and we need to replace the remaining cables. The point of the story and my silly questions is when asked about properly addressing the current issues and considering future growth the electrician set up all kinds of red flags with his recommendation the service be upgraded to 200A. eg service provider would find the service/panel rating mismatch, the transition from the service #2 to 2/0, and the distro off the downstream meterpanel main lugs unacceptable to the point of mandated disconnect. Going forward I plan to get estimates from a few lic electricians to upgrade service and replace service to panel cables. I just don't wish to incur additional costs because someone wants to make $$$. THANK YOU all for your assistance.
 
K. Watched your video on six disconnect rule. I'm as confused as much as you folk's seemed to be. In this install a 4 meter panelboard has a two pole fuse disconnect at the service feed. Each meter occupies what I would consider a compartment. eg the meter and associated disconnect can be serviced w/o exposure to the panels main buss. In your opinion do we meet the spirit of the rule or might we be required to replace the panelboard if we chose to upgrade the service?
 
DBrenchley said:
K. Watched your video on six disconnect rule. I'm as confused as much as you folk's seemed to be. In this install a 4 meter panelboard has a two pole fuse disconnect at the service feed. Each meter occupies what I would consider a compartment. eg the meter and associated disconnect can be serviced w/o exposure to the panels main buss. In your opinion do we meet the spirit of the rule or might we be required to replace the panelboard if we chose to upgrade the service?
Click to expand...
There is no multi-service meter main combos on the market that meet the requirements of the rules in the 2020 NEC, and there won't be for some time as UL 67 has been modified to define compartment as used in that code rule. The definition is that the compartment must comply with the rules in UL 50 for junction boxes.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is no multi-service meter main combos on the market that meet the requirements of the rules in the 2020 NEC, and there won't be for some time as UL 67 has been modified to define compartment as used in that code rule. The definition is that the compartment must comply with the rules in UL 50 for junction boxes.
Click to expand...
Dang. Kinda put the industry between a rock and a hard place. Any one have real life experience eg upgrading service to a meter bank? Are inspectors forcing replacement of the panels?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is no multi-service meter main combos on the market that meet the requirements of the rules in the 2020 NEC, and there won't be for some time as UL 67 has been modified to define compartment as used in that code rule. The definition is that the compartment must comply with the rules in UL 50 for junction boxes.
Click to expand...
Why did I assume the code change was inspired by or done in cooperation with product standard revisions? Sheesh.
 
electrofelon said:
IMO the NEC needs to stay in their damn lane. They are not gods, they can't have their way with everything. I actually am on the verge of thinking the feds need to step in and regulate the out of control NFPA.
Click to expand...
Actually those changes were a result of PIs of mine that triggered other PIs. I had given up after trying for three code cycles, but a couple of cyces later others proposed changes to both the NEC and UL 67.
We need to have 100% isolation of the service line side connections and OCPD like they have in Canada. My original PIs were based on the Canadian design for service equipment as the same manufacturers that make service equipment for the US, also make service equipment for Canada.

The NFPA has no control over anything..they are a private organization that writes codes and standards...there is no control until some unit of government adopts those codes or standards.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Actually those changes were a result of PIs of mine that triggered other PIs. I had given up after trying for three code cycles, but a couple of cyces later others proposed changes to both the NEC and UL 67.
We need to have 100% isolation of the service line side connections and OCPD like they have in Canada. My original PIs were based on the Canadian design for service equipment as the same manufacturers that make service equipment for the US, also make service equipment for Canada.

The NFPA has no control over anything..they are a private organization that writes codes and standards...there is no control until some unit of government adopts those codes or standards.
Click to expand...
I actually fully agree with you that most panelboard designs are ridiculous and should be designed with better barriers, covers and compartments. The I-line design is good. But that said, I also stand by my opinion that this is not an NEC issue and they should have kept their fingers out of it.

I understand that the NFPA is private organization, however they have near total monopolistic control over an immense industry and have proven themselves to be incompetent, if nothing else from the AFCI debacle which has cost everyone an immense amount of time money frustration and hassle. Of course states can not adopt of modify, but most just blindly adopt.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Actually those changes were a result of PIs of mine that triggered other PIs. I had given up after trying for three code cycles, but a couple of cyces later others proposed changes to both the NEC and UL 67.
We need to have 100% isolation of the service line side connections and OCPD like they have in Canada. My original PIs were based on the Canadian design for service equipment as the same manufacturers that make service equipment for the US, also make service equipment for Canada.

The NFPA has no control over anything..they are a private organization that writes codes and standards...there is no control until some unit of government adopts those codes or standards.
Click to expand...
I actually fully agree with you that most panelboard designs are ridiculous and should be designed with better barriers, covers and compartments. The I-line design is good. But that said, I also stand by my opinion that this is not an NEC issue and they should have kept their fingers out of it.

I understand that the NFPA is private organization, however they have near total monopolistic control over an immense industry and have proven themselves to be incompetent, if nothing else from the AFCI debacle which has cost everyone an immense amount of time money frustration and hassle. Of course states can not adopt of modify, but most just blindly adopt.
 
electrofelon said:
but most just blindly adopt.
Click to expand...
If they don't adopt and something happens fingers get pointed at them. Most government types aren't smart enough to understand the circuit in a dollar store flashlight, so they just follow the herd.

Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged?
 
Joethemechanic said:
If they don't adopt and something happens fingers get pointed at them. Most government types aren't smart enough to understand the circuit in a dollar store flashlight, so they just follow the herd.

Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged?
Click to expand...
I have not read it but I know of it.

I am not saying they should not adopt (maybe not adopt the NEC, find another more competent standard organization though). but they need to take a closer look at the garbage that gets put in there and do some cost benefit analysis since clearly the NFPA isnt doing it. But you are right certainly finger pointing is a big part of it: No one wants to get accused or be responsible for some fire or death which an afci would have prevented (total BS of course, but that is what will be said) so what incentive do they have to amend out? There are a couple brave ones out there but far too few. Personally I think the NEC is too far gone and un-salvageable and we need a better standard from an organization that can actually come up with a coherent un-ambiguous sentence.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
...
We need to have 100% isolation of the service line side connections and OCPD like they have in Canada. My original PIs were based on the Canadian design for service equipment as the same manufacturers that make service equipment for the US, also make service equipment for Canada.

...
Click to expand...
First, was there a more pressing reason (injuries, deaths, fires that were occuring) than just imitating the Canadians?

Second, if the same manufacturers make this stuff for the Canadians for years, why are we saying that this code change has led to unavailability of meter banks because manufacturers don't have designs?
 
jaggedben said:
First, was there a more pressing reason (injuries, deaths, fires that were occuring) than just imitating the Canadians?

Second, if the same manufacturers make this stuff for the Canadians for years, why are we saying that this code change has led to unavailability of meter banks because manufacturers don't have designs?
Click to expand...
Our product standards and the ones used in Canada are not the same for this. A product listed to a Canadian standard and not to a US standard cannot be used in the US. US manufacturers won't produce a product until there is a product standard.
The issue is arc flash injuries and deaths at service equipment because most of the time they are worked on while energized because the only way to get the power off is to have the utility kill the power on the line side of the service equipment. Having the service equipment in a completely separate enclosure eliminates the issue for most electrical work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top