nec 2020 code requirment ?

[shortcircuit2]

In reading the 2020 Code, if an installer selects 230.85(3) for the Emergency Disconnect, 250.25 directs the installation to comply with 250.24(A)-(D)...which will require a GEC connected to the GES

The 230.85(3) Emergency Disconnect labeled NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT now requires a Service Disconnect after either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance...which also requires a GEC connected to the GES according to article 250

Why will contractors select 230.85(3)??? Well, if it involves a service upgrade on an older dwelling with 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits, option 3 allows the installation to have a 3-wire between the Emergency Disconnect and the Service Equipment, thereby allowing the 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits to stay.

There does not seem to be any hazard associated with the installation. But the language does appear to require a GEC to the GES at both switches.

 

[kwired]

In reading the 2020 Code, if an installer selects 230.85(3) for the Emergency Disconnect, 250.25 directs the installation to comply with 250.24(A)-(D)...which will require a GEC connected to the GES

The 230.85(3) Emergency Disconnect labeled NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT now requires a Service Disconnect after either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance...which also requires a GEC connected to the GES according to article 250

Why will contractors select 230.85(3)??? Well, if it involves a service upgrade on an older dwelling with 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits, option 3 allows the installation to have a 3-wire between the Emergency Disconnect and the Service Equipment, thereby allowing the 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits to stay.

There does not seem to be any hazard associated with the installation. But the language does appear to require a GEC to the GES at both switches.

And 250.24(A)(1) says you can land the GEC anywhere between the service drop/lateral and the service disconnecting means. The emergency disconnecting means labeled not service equipment is just a point in between just like a meter socket might be and is one option of where to land the GEC. Everything ahead of and including the service disconnecting means still needs to be bonded to the grounded service conductor, like it has for many years.

without some careful reading and examining referenced sections I'm still not really sure what 250.25 accomplishes that wasn't already required before other than maybe they must have thought it clarified something that may have been questionable before.

 

[jaggedben]

Clear as mud, huh.

2020 NEC 230.85 option 3 appears to allow equipment that meets the criteria of a "service disconnecting means" and label it NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT and now it is not what it is and you can run 3-wires inside to a main breaker panel without separating the neutrals and grounds.

An option 3 disconnect meeting the criteria for a "service disconnecting means" must also comply with new 2020 section 250.25 and have a 250.24(B) Main Bonding Jumper and a 250.24(D) Grounding Electrode Conductor connected to grounding electrode(s) required by Part III of article 250.

Any clearer now? Not to me as now both inside and outside pieces of equipment will need to be connected to a GES.

Other interpretations needed.

Here's a better interpretation...

250.25 does not apply to emergency disconnects per se because they are required by 230.85 and 250.25 applies explicitly to systems permitted by 230.82. Moreover, 230.82 doesn't generally permit systems as described in 250.25, it permits equipment. Therefore one could argue, based on the word 'systems', that 250.25 applies only to the those parts of 230.82 that specifically refer to 'systems', namely some or all of subsections (5), (6) and (8). There's problems with this argument from a scientific/engineering sensibility point of view, but I think it's not as bad as applying 250.25 to the entirety of 230.82. Cable limiters, for example, clearly do/should not have any bearing on grounding requirements.

Thanks for pointing out 250.25. What a failure of the code making process. It makes little sense from a scientific or enginering point of view, and there's the lack of logical consistency (systems vs. equipment). Moreover, it's also ungrammatical (improper parallel constructions) almost to the point of being incomprehensible. The NFPA doesn't employ sufficient copy-editors to get the job done adequately.

 

[jaggedben]

...

without some careful reading and examining referenced sections I'm still not really sure what 250.25 accomplishes that wasn't already required before other than maybe they must have thought it clarified something that may have been questionable before.

Well, 250.25 could clarify grounding requirements on things like solar supply-side connections and fire alarm systems. Perhaps 250.25 was even the reason that proposed language in 705.11 on related subjects was left out of the final version. However, I think it's clear that whoever was working on 250.25 was not working in tandem with those pushing 230.85.

 

[hornetd]

I can see a new Halloween prank-- see how many breakers you can shut off before the cops show up!

I see this as a real concern.

With the the change to fiber optic pathways to carry telephone service no electricity can mean no telephone service. My Brother's rural North Carolina home has no Cellular telephone service. The Fiber Optic Customer Service Unit (CSU) has to have electricity at the customer end; foot end; of the line to function. His cellular service is via Femtocell. That requires internet connectivity to work. Verizon no longer provides backup batteries for their CSUs. There expectation is that you will provide it if you want it. During a normal install they do not even give the customer written information on the need for a customer provided backup battery. IF it all depended on the Fiber Optic connection, as initially installed, if you killed his power he couldn't talk to anyone outside his home and would have to resort to his Amateur (Ham) Radio to call for help.

Having spent his working life with New England Telephone, New York New England Exchange Company (NYNEX), then Verizon he spotted the flaw immediately. Since he was a Communications Workers of America (CWA) member before he went into computer operations the installer would talk to him off the record. It's all about the Andrew Carnegie Formula. "Take care of cost and profit takes care of itself." Any way they can make a customer premise visit less likely is more profit for Verizon. If Verizon provided a back up battery customers would expect them to replace it as necessary.

He already has an Automatic Transfer Generator. He placed a rather large Absorbed Glass Mat (AGM), Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) battery below the CSU and a small Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) to carry his CSU and Femtocell through a Generator Transfer without dropping a cellular call in progress but how many customers would have the faintest inkling of any of those flaws in their fiber optic telephone service. Admittedly his situation is not a common one but it does illustrate the weakness of this media for delivering telephone service. He and his spouse are approaching 70 years of age. Having no way to call for help would be a nightmare.

--
Tom Horne

 

[shortcircuit2]

Here's a better interpretation...

250.25 does not apply to emergency disconnects per se because they are required by 230.85 and 250.25 applies explicitly to systems permitted by 230.82. Moreover, 230.82 doesn't generally permit systems as described in 250.25, it permits equipment. Therefore one could argue, based on the word 'systems', that 250.25 applies only to the those parts of 230.82 that specifically refer to 'systems', namely some or all of subsections (5), (6) and (8). There's problems with this argument from a scientific/engineering sensibility point of view, but I think it's not as bad as applying 250.25 to the entirety of 230.82. Cable limiters, for example, clearly do/should not have any bearing on grounding requirements.

Thanks for pointing out 250.25. What a failure of the code making process. It makes little sense from a scientific or enginering point of view, and there's the lack of logical consistency (systems vs. equipment). Moreover, it's also ungrammatical (improper parallel constructions) almost to the point of being incomprehensible. The NFPA doesn't employ sufficient copy-editors to get the job done adequately.

That is a good interpretation
Thanks for the feedback.

 

[shortcircuit2]

Well, 250.25 could clarify grounding requirements on things like solar supply-side connections and fire alarm systems. Perhaps 250.25 was even the reason that proposed language in 705.11 on related subjects was left out of the final version. However, I think it's clear that whoever was working on 250.25 was not working in tandem with those pushing 230.85.

Yes, 250.25 does clear up grounding for supply-side connections...I think

Now, given your feedback on the GEC connection location in post 22 per 250.24(A)(1)...should we conclude that an existing Code compliant GEC connection for an existing service is all that is needed or is it necessary to extend a GEC into a separate supply-side disconnect enclosure per 250.64(D)? (unless the GEC is connected per 250.64(D)(3) at a common location?)

Here in Massachusetts we are under the 2020 NEC as of January 1st and we are all trying to sort the new rules out. By the time most of you consider the 2020 Code we will be closing in on the 2023 NEC. This is unfortunate as it makes for a small group to realize the implications of the new Code and surely limits the number of Public Inputs for the next cycle. We only have until September 2020 for new proposals.

 

[hillbilly1]

Long after I retire and probably after I'm dead, electricians doing panel changes will have a much easier time because they won't have to pull the meter.

And easier for unqualified people to not pull a permit! LOL!

 

[hillbilly1]

Many houses around here have outside panels and I've never heard of a vandal turning off someone's breakers.

Really depends on the neighborhood, we have installed lockable covers per the customer, where Juveniles would push the EPO shuntrip button and shut down the store. And since it’s usually in the back, it’s easy for them to make their getaway. Haven’t heard of any on the residential side, but I imagine it happens.

 

[mopowr steve]

Now I’m getting a little concerned, I hope vandals don’t kill power to people that rely on oxygen machines.

 

[jim dungar]

Now I’m getting a little concerned, I hope vandals don’t kill power to people that rely on oxygen machines.

I was just driving around the neighbor and probably saw 300 unlocked breakers on outdoor multi-meter centers. If this has not been a problem in the past it won't likely be one in the future.

 

[kwired]

Yes, 250.25 does clear up grounding for supply-side connections...I think

Now, given your feedback on the GEC connection location in post 22 per 250.24(A)(1)...should we conclude that an existing Code compliant GEC connection for an existing service is all that is needed or is it necessary to extend a GEC into a separate supply-side disconnect enclosure per 250.64(D)? (unless the GEC is connected per 250.64(D)(3) at a common location?)

Here in Massachusetts we are under the 2020 NEC as of January 1st and we are all trying to sort the new rules out. By the time most of you consider the 2020 Code we will be closing in on the 2023 NEC. This is unfortunate as it makes for a small group to realize the implications of the new Code and surely limits the number of Public Inputs for the next cycle. We only have until September 2020 for new proposals.

Forget code for a second, what good does multiple grounding electrode systems do in a building?

One GES is all that is necessary, but needs to connect to multiple systems when they exist. Emergency disconnect in question and the service disconnect are just two different points on the same system.

 

[crtemp]

there is a new requirement in 230.85 that applies to one and two family dwellings that requires a disconnect for emergency purposes to be installed at a readily accessible outdoor location. It can also be the service disconnecting means or it can be just a switch that is not the service disconnecting means. Needs to be marked accordingly and there is no mention of location relative to metering, just that there needs to be an outside disconnect for emergency purposes.

IMO it leaves some questions and I wouldn't be surprised to see changes in the next code to clear up some those questions.

Will a standard 200 amp meter main that is labeled "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT" work as option (3)? And if so would the 200 amp panel inside still need a 200 amp main disconnect breaker or would a main lug panel work as well?

 

[jaggedben]

Yes, 250.25 does clear up grounding for supply-side connections...I think

Now, given your feedback on the GEC connection location in post 22 per 250.24(A)(1)...should we conclude that an existing Code compliant GEC connection for an existing service is all that is needed or is it necessary to extend a GEC into a separate supply-side disconnect enclosure per 250.64(D)? (unless the GEC is connected per 250.64(D)(3) at a common location?)

Here in Massachusetts we are under the 2020 NEC as of January 1st and we are all trying to sort the new rules out. By the time most of you consider the 2020 Code we will be closing in on the 2023 NEC. This is unfortunate as it makes for a small group to realize the implications of the new Code and surely limits the number of Public Inputs for the next cycle. We only have until September 2020 for new proposals.

I believe you're responding to my comment about supply-side solar connections and the like, and not referring to emergency disconnects.

Yes, I would say that 250.25 finally makes grounding and bonding clear. You treat the supply side disconnect like a service disconnect even if we're still not calling it that.

For what it's worth, that was my position way back in like, 2011, when I first learned enough about the code to have an opinion. Subsequent arguments discussions on this forum led me to the conclusion that it was arrogant to insist that the code was clear on that point. But now 3 code cycles or so later we're finally getting clarity, except none of it is in 705. For example, they (finally!) added language to 230.82(6) that requires the equipment for such connections to be suitable for use as service equipment. The only thing that remains somewhat unclear is when/if a solar supply side connection is subject to the grouping and six-handle limits. (230.71 and such). They changed the definition of a service so that that argument is no longer explicit. However we still have all these sections - and now one more with 250.25 - that refer indirectly to disconnecting means connected on the the supply side of the service disconnecting means as if they are something 'other than' the service disconnecting means. To me it would make more sense to say that power production sources and fire pump systems shall be permitted to be connected directly to the service with their own separate service disconnecting means, and excise those items from 230.82. In other words, leave 230.82 with only stuff that is connected in series, which is really a different animal. But that would require too much editing, wouldn't it?

 

[jaggedben]

Forget code for a second, what good does multiple grounding electrode systems do in a building?

One GES is all that is necessary, but needs to connect to multiple systems when they exist. Emergency disconnect in question and the service disconnect are just two different points on the same system.

See my previous post, I don't believe short circuit was referring to emergency disconnects in the post you quoted.

Nobody said anything about multiple grounding electrode systems. Just multiple GECs or GEC taps, as in 250.64(D).

 

[jaggedben]

Will a standard 200 amp meter main that is labeled "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT" work as option (3)? And if so would the 200 amp panel inside still need a 200 amp main disconnect breaker or would a main lug panel work as well?

That doesn't work.

First, if it's 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT' then it shouldn't have the neutral-ground bond that comes standard on meter mains, which are often labeled 'suitable for use only as service equipment'. So you can't go taking something labeled as such by the manufacturer and stick a label on it that says 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT.' That's either the wrong equipment or the wrong label.

Second, if you do the thing of reconfiguring the inside panel to a main lug panel then your meter main outside becomes Option 1, not Option 3.

What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*

...
*Begin rant:

The whole new requirement was a poorly thought out and unnecessary. There should have been an exception for replacing service equipment in an existing location. There are places (dense urban locations) in this country where the requirement will make it cost prohibitive for people to replace old FPE and Zinsco junk probably creates more of a hazard of starting a fire than is offset by not making a firefighter work a few seconds with an axe to get inside. Hopefully AHJs will enforce this new requirement in a manner that reasonably suits the circumstances and not make situations worse by driving people to avoid doing permitted work.

End rant.

 

[ActionDave]

...
*Begin rant:

The whole new 2020 code was a poorly thought out and unnecessary.

End rant.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[crtemp]

That doesn't work.

First, if it's 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT' then it shouldn't have the neutral-ground bond that comes standard on meter mains, which are often labeled 'suitable for use only as service equipment'. So you can't go taking something labeled as such by the manufacturer and stick a label on it that says 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT.' That's either the wrong equipment or the wrong label.

Second, if you do the thing of reconfiguring the inside panel to a main lug panel then your meter main outside becomes Option 1, not Option 3.

What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*

...
*Begin rant:

The whole new requirement was a poorly thought out and unnecessary. There should have been an exception for replacing service equipment in an existing location. There are places (dense urban locations) in this country where the requirement will make it cost prohibitive for people to replace old FPE and Zinsco junk probably creates more of a hazard of starting a fire than is offset by not making a firefighter work a few seconds with an axe to get inside. Hopefully AHJs will enforce this new requirement in a manner that reasonably suits the circumstances and not make situations worse by driving people to avoid doing permitted work.

End rant.

So if I use the labeling mentioned in option 1 I’m good? Then just treat the meter main as my main service, and land my EGC into it, run 4 wires to my inside panel, and separate grounds and neutrals inside as well?

 

[jaggedben]

So if I use the labeling mentioned in option 1 I’m good? Then just treat the meter main as my main service, and land my EGC into it, run 4 wires to my inside panel, and separate grounds and neutrals inside as well?

Yes that works for Option 1.

 

[shortcircuit2]

Forget code for a second, what good does multiple grounding electrode systems do in a building?

I agree.

But, new 2020 Code section 250.25 seems to imply the installation of an additional one via 250.24(D) for the Emergency Disconnect (ED) or any other "Systems" allowed to be Supply-Side connected in 230.82.