Proper wiring of general use receptacles

[tallgirl]

Is this even possible? How would the power companies increase the voltage without changing all of the transformers?

Easily. Increase the distribution voltage.

It's wires all the way back to the generators.

 

[tallgirl]

They do have voltage regulators on their systems that are to some extent adjustable with a variable regulator like this:

https://www.eaton.com/us/en-us/products/medium-voltage-power-distribution-control-systems/voltage-regulators/voltage-regulators--fundamentals-of-voltage-regulators.html

If a voltage is out of specs, the electrician can make a report, but that doesn't mean anything will be done as the variations are time of testing conditional and a lineman when finally getting on site to make an evaluation may or may not see the values the electrician witnessed and reported. The electricians ability to control an out of spec situation on the feeder or branch circuit level is very limited at best, and has no control over system of the POCO.

If OP is suggesting that the electrician takes some ownership of this beyond what is simple best case adjustment factors, then it would be forcing an extreme over sizing of conductor to mitigate a potential "possible" excessive VD. But then it could also start creating another issue related to AFC and SCCR of the local system breakers and equipment. Most residential panels used around here are rated to 10kAIC and more than a few appliances are only good to 3-5kAIC and the voltage drop aids in meeting within these limits. So eliminating ANY potential VD would now in concert with the POCO attempt to keep the levels stable, potentially make it necessary to increase the SCCR of the entire system installation.

One issue the POCO around here are complaining about is the amount of private PV introduced onto the POCO lines with spikes created by fluctuating sun/cloud causing spiking/lags faster than the POCO system can adjust to it. Regulations do say they must provide within a minimum tolerance the set voltages, and these spike and lags give them a real headache. And if such PV or other non-utility power generations are provided in the system after the POCO regulator, such spike/lags will be experienced to an even greater extent by neighboring properties.

regulatory requirement:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE BULLETIN 1724D-114 RD-GD-2017-90 SUBJECT: Voltage Regulator Application on Rural Distribution Systems:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/UEP_Bulletin_1724D-114.pdf

Sounds like UL / IEEE needs to do some more work on tripping voltage and high / low voltage behaviors, such as gradual curtailment.

 

[bsmale]

I thank everyone for their responses. I still stand on my original post.

Regardless of IF the POCO is willing to change the voltage, it’s still an issue. It may not be an easy thing to change their minds, but it is possible.

Many have said it’s a design issue. Ok, I can agree with that; but then I also believe we should design the system to be effective throughout its use.

Everyone today is all about the lowest price—how can we do this for cheaper…..Guess what?, that is the very same mentality that put us in our current position with our country. Take some responsibility in the fact that you should be providing a quality product that will last the test of time, and lawsuits.

So, here I stand; surrounded by just a few that care enough to take ahold of what should be, rather than what is. We should be taking care of the people who end up inside what we wire, and it should be safe and work properly. This may be just an opinion, but it is one that I will stand on because I actually care about my client, not my pocketbook.

By the way, unless the project you are working on is specified, you as the contractor become the designer; and maybe, just maybe you should put forth just a little bit of effort into making everything better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

So, here I stand; surrounded by just a few that care enough to take ahold of what should be, rather than what is. We should be taking care of the people who end up inside what we wire, and it should be safe and work properly. This may be just an opinion, but it is one that I will stand on because I actually care about my client, not my pocketbook.

Many of us here build way beyond the minimum standards set forth by the NEC but there is no requirement to do so. If your customers are willing to pay more to go above and beyond what the NEC dictates as the minimum required then many would agree that they would like to up sell to a higher standard. But it again comes back to what is required by the code and not what someone perceives as a better design.

As Don mentioned in post #13 there is a process to change the minimum requirements of the NEC. Many of us here have written and gotten code changes accepted by following that process. Although the process is not flawless it does work.

 

[bsmale]

Many of us here build way beyond the minimum standards set forth by the NEC but there is no requirement to do so. If your customers are willing to pay more to go above and beyond what the NEC dictates as the minimum required then many would agree that they would like to up sell to a higher standard. But it again comes back to what is required by the code and not what someone perceives as a better design.

As Don mentioned in post #13 there is a process to change the minimum requirements of the NEC. Many of us here have written and gotten code changes accepted by following that process. Although the process is not flawless it does work.

I was not saying that I stand alone; like I said, there are few of us that design above the Code. And I do appreciate the suggestion that Don gave, and probably will start this process that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Little Bill]

I thank everyone for their responses. I still stand on my original post.

Regardless of IF the POCO is willing to change the voltage, it’s still an issue. It may not be an easy thing to change their minds, but it is possible.

Many have said it’s a design issue. Ok, I can agree with that; but then I also believe we should design the system to be effective throughout its use.

Everyone today is all about the lowest price—how can we do this for cheaper…..Guess what?, that is the very same mentality that put us in our current position with our country. Take some responsibility in the fact that you should be providing a quality product that will last the test of time, and lawsuits.

So, here I stand; surrounded by just a few that care enough to take ahold of what should be, rather than what is. We should be taking care of the people who end up inside what we wire, and it should be safe and work properly. This may be just an opinion, but it is one that I will stand on because I actually care about my client, not my pocketbook.

By the way, unless the project you are working on is specified, you as the contractor become the designer; and maybe, just maybe you should put forth just a little bit of effort into making everything better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I go above code in many areas. One such being kitchens. I install many more receptacles and circuits than is required. This is based on both customer desires, and what I may suggest. Even in a spec house I add some that make sense to me without knowing any customer needs.
Having said that, I'm not about to start installing #10 AWG conductors for 15A & 20A circuits in a house for some dreamed up voltage drop problem.
What POCO delivers as voltage to a service is beyond our scope and should only be addressed if the voltage is woefully below, or above, their specs and tolerances.

The AFCI that was forced on us has many problems. But I don't think the voltage has anything to do with their non-performing!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I was not saying that I stand alone; like I said, there are few of us that design above the Code. And I do appreciate the suggestion that Don gave, and probably will start this process that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You will need a very solid technical substantiation...one that includes documented real world problems as a result of the voltage drop. Bench testing and theory will not likely sway the panel members.

 

[Strathead]

There is no NEC requirement to provide voltage drop compensation on general use receptacle circuits in a home. The 3% you've mentioned is merely a suggestion. Yes there may be instances where long branch circuits end up with a lower voltage on the farthest receptacle especially under a heavy load. Testing them is not required and IMO it is not very useful simply due to the nature of how receptacles in homes are typically used.

Welcome to the Forum.

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

 

[infinity]

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

How is it worded? Does it actually say that on a receptacle circuit you must go to the last receptacle on the circuit and calculate a full load at that device?

 

[LarryFine]

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

What if the voltage sags at the service? Is the POCO legally required to comply with this?

 

[jim dungar]

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

Is that 3% of; the nominal, such as 120V, or of the actual delivered voltage from the utility? What current is used in the calculation, like 100% of protective device or a dedicated load nameplate?

 

[bsmale]

I go above code in many areas. One such being kitchens. I install many more receptacles and circuits than is required. This is based on both customer desires, and what I may suggest. Even in a spec house I add some that make sense to me without knowing any customer needs.
Having said that, I'm not about to start installing #10 AWG conductors for 15A & 20A circuits in a house for some dreamed up voltage drop problem.
What POCO delivers as voltage to a service is beyond our scope and should only be addressed if the voltage is woefully below, or above, their specs and tolerances.

The AFCI that was forced on us has many problems. But I don't think the voltage has anything to do with their non-performing!

Dreamed up, hmmm; OK. Undersized wires cause fires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bsmale]

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

Sir, is this in the Florida Building Code? I am very happy you chimed in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bsmale]

For the record, Florida DOES have a code requirement of 3% for branch circuit voltage drop. It is one of the few modifications to the NEC that they have made.

Thank you again, and yes, it is the FBC. 13-413.AB 1.1 & 1.2.

The FBC states that if there is any discrepancy between the FBC and any reference material, such as the NEC; the FBC takes precedent. This means that although the NEC only suggests VD values, the FBC says it is a requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LarryFine]

This means that although the NEC only suggests VD values, the FBC says it is a requirement.

Again, is this incumbent upon the POCO?

 

[bsmale]

Again, is this incumbent upon the POCO?

I would think it would be upon actual voltage, but I am not certain—though I will find out at some point.

I have my own issue with the POCO and the increased voltages. It is causing nuisance trips when it spikes up to 127V. I have a customer with this issue. They have a generator as well, which is regulated at 120V, and when it transfers; there is not an issue—It IS POCO related; I just have to prove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jim dungar]

Thank you again, and yes, it is the FBC. 13-413.AB 1.1

Which says it is in addition to, not a modification of the NEC.
Another example of the requirement for people to look at all the pertinent building codes and not just the NEC.

Formal interpretations show the VD us based on the 'design load per NEC' not any actual load and does not appear to care what the starting nominal voltage is.

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

[jim dungar]

I have my own issue with the POCO and the increased voltages. It is causing nuisance trips when it spikes up to 127V. I have a customer with this issue.

Are you using the term spike, meaning a very short increase, instead if surge which happens over a longer period?

 

[bsmale]

Are you using the term spike, meaning a very short increase, instead if surge which happens over a longer period?

It is actually a surge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[solarken]

Arc-fault breakers, I know for sure Square D, are rated at 120 volts, with a 3% tolerance—I have an email confirming this from Square D engineering. Power companies are increasing voltages on their lines to account for the increase in load, instead of fixing the cause of the problem. I personally have a customer that has random nuisance trips due to voltage spikes upwards of 126 volts—this is WAY out of tolerance for these breakers. Beyond that, on the branch circuits: If the wiring is not sized to accommodate the full load, at the farthest device, the voltage drop will put the breaker out of tolerance; and it will not function properly.

Would you mind sharing the email from Square D in this forum?