Res Disconnect next to Panel: is it a subpanel then?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newservice

Senior Member
Have come across this before, a separate enclosed knife disco for the service, right next to the panel, maybe a foot at most, and panel is fed with 3 wires from the disco not 4, but bonded with a good #4 copper. Panel does not have separated neutrals and grounds as a sub panel would.
Even though separate enclosures,, would you let this fly?
 
Little Bill said:
With no OCPD, it is not the 1st means of disconnect w/OCP. So the panel would be your service disconnect and would not be a subpanel.
Click to expand...
OK thanks, I did not know that. Makes sense. Even more so if you consider pulling the meter could be a disconnect. Thx!
 
Take a look at 230.91. It substantiates what Bill states. The disconnect along with the ovecurrent device immediately adajacednt to the disconenct become the service disconnect.
 
right, I think I did know that but I saw it yesterday and am in a bit of brain fog atm. This reinforces it and points to the code.
 
I don't agree with my fellow moderators on this. The knife switch is the service disconnect and the bonding must be at the switch. There is nothing that says the service OCPD has to be part of the service disconnect. I see the cited section, 230.91, as supporting my comment.
 
newservice said:
Have come across this before, a separate enclosed knife disco for the service, right next to the panel, maybe a foot at most, and panel is fed with 3 wires from the disco not 4, but bonded with a good #4 copper. Panel does not have separated neutrals and grounds as a sub panel would.
Even though separate enclosures,, would you let this fly?
Click to expand...

I'm confused by " fed with 3 wires from the disco not 4, but ]bonded with a good #4 copper." Sounds like 4 wires after all, unless you are describing a bare neutral.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't agree with my fellow moderators on this. The knife switch is the service disconnect and the bonding must be at the switch. There is nothing that says the service OCPD has to be part of the service disconnect. I see the cited section, 230.91, as supporting my comment.
Click to expand...
I can't say we are in disagreement (my wording, as always, could have been better). I was attempting to say that I see no problem with the installation as the OCP is immediately adjacent.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't agree with my fellow moderators on this. The knife switch is the service disconnect and the bonding must be at the switch. There is nothing that says the service OCPD has to be part of the service disconnect. I see the cited section, 230.91, as supporting my comment.
Click to expand...
I guess I also have Augieitis! :) The main point I was attempting to make was that the panel was not a subpanel.
 
Little Bill said:
I guess I also have Augieitis! :) The main point I was attempting to make was that the panel was not a subpanel.
Click to expand...
And I am saying it is a subpanel and requires the ungrounded conductor, the grounded conductor and the grounding conductor between the knife switch and the panel.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
And I am saying it is a subpanel and requires the ungrounded conductor, the grounded conductor and the grounding conductor between the knife switch and the panel.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way. I think if the code meant it that way, they would have said it. IMO, it's just giving permission to have the OCP to be adjacent to, rather than a part of, the disconnecting means, in effect, making them as one in the same.
 
Little Bill said:
I don't see it that way. I think if the code meant it that way, they would have said it. IMO, it's just giving permission to have the OCP to be adjacent to, rather than a part of, the disconnecting means, in effect, making them as one in the same.
Click to expand...
I read it the other way. Maybe I will put this on my 2026 PI list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top