NEC 230.71 PANEL

[cola]

I have a Eaton 400 amp HP404040SHF W/split mains in Riverside County California.
I'm using the second sub breaker @ 150 amp. Back feed only from solar and 15kw batters. (grid tied)

230.71(B)
In general, a service should have a single disconnecting means.
However, one set of service entrance conductors is permitted to
supply two to six service disconnecting means in lieu of a single
main disconnect. Both single-occupancy and multiply-occupancy
buildings can be provided with one main service disconnect or up
to six main disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors.
Conductors from renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic
systems and wind generators, are feeder conductors.

Would this still be a non-compliant install.

 

[jaggedben]

If it's an existing service the AHJ may or may not give you grief. The 2023 NEC has an exception that explicitly allows this, but the 2022 California Electric code (based on the 2020 NEC) does not, so if the inspector wants to be a jerk about it then they could be a jerk about it. You may want to make sure the customer agrees to the cost of a backup plan, such as a 'Hawaiian Tie-In" with a new subpanel on the existing feed, or a load side tap.

If it is a panel that's being installed as a new service panel then you should probably find another plan.

 

[cola]

If it's an existing service the AHJ may or may not give you grief. The 2023 NEC has an exception that explicitly allows this, but the 2022 California Electric code (based on the 2020 NEC) does not, so if the inspector wants to be a jerk about it then they could be a jerk about it. You may want to make sure the customer agrees to the cost of a backup plan, such as a 'Hawaiian Tie-In" with a new subpanel on the existing feed, or a load side tap.

If it is a panel that's being installed as a new service panel then you should probably find another plan.

What is the 2023 NEC exception that explicitly allows this. I installed the panel and they turned it down.

Thank you
Mike

 

[Elect117]

The non compliant part is because of (1) through (6). You would need them in separate enclosures. Other than that, I don't see an issue.

230.71(B) - "...or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5"

230.40 Exception 5 - "
One set of service-entrance conductors connected to the supply side of the normal service disconnecting means shall be permitted to supply each or several systems covered by 230.82(5) or 230.82(6)."

230.82(6) is solar on the supply side of the service disconnect.

P.S. that is some wonky language to say that solar is supplied by the service in exception 5.

 

[jaggedben]

What is the 2023 NEC exception that explicitly allows this. I installed the panel and they turned it down.

Thank you
Mike

It's at the end of 230.71(B). It only applies to existing equipment installed in compliance with previous versions of the code. So if you just installed this panel since the beginning of 2023 you are SOL, sorry.

 

[pv_n00b]

The change to require separation of service disconnects in multiple disconnect equipment happened in 2020 and there was no exception then. The exception was added in 2023, so if you are under 2020 you are out of luck adding a service disconnect to existing equipment with a disconnect without getting AHJ permission. Under 2023 you can do it in existing equipment (installed under 2020 and earlier) but not new equipment.