SE cable

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

minton1012

Member
So what is the final word on the size of SE cable feeding a new 100amp residential service? I'm getting various answers from various sources including NEC? In my case the load center (branch circuit panel) is 80' from the disconnect at the point of entrance. Also, do I need another disconnecting means at the panel?
 
Read 310.15(B)(6) and if this is infact the "Main Feeder" proceed to Table 310.15(B)(6). If it is not the "Main Feeder" see Table 310.16

Roger
 
C3PO said:
If you have to use Table 310.16 than you will have to use the 60c column for interior wiring.
Click to expand...
Under the 2008 this is true, 2005 not true.


See 338.10(B)(4)(a)


Roger
 
roger said:
Under the 2008 this is true, 2005 not true.


See 338.10(B)(4)(a)


Roger
Click to expand...


Seems like common sense would dictate that if the temp rating was lowered in 2008 to the 60c column for a feeder in the wall, a feeder installed under the 2005 NEC doesn't know what year it is and maybe one should consider using the 60c column. Just a thought.
 
acrwc10 said:
Seems like common sense would dictate that if the temp rating was lowered in 2008 to the 60c column for a feeder in the wall, a feeder installed under the 2005 NEC doesn't know what year it is and maybe one should consider using the 60c column. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
First of all, where do you get the idea that common sense plays a part in the NEC? :grin:

Now all kidding aside, If I had bid a project using a code compliant wiring method that was going to change at sometime down the road and this change would hit me in the pocket, you can bet that I'm going to use the method that was legal at the time I bid the project.

As an aside, The ROP for this change did not cite any safety reasons, it was only to make it uniform with the installation methods for article 334.


Roger
 
roger said:
First of all, where do you get the idea that common sense plays a part in the NEC? :grin:

Now all kidding aside, If I had bid a project using a code compliant wiring method that was going to change at sometime down the road and this change would hit me in the pocket, you can bet that I'm going to use the method that was legal at the time I bid the project.

As an aside, The ROP for this change did not cite any safety reasons, it was only to make it uniform with the installation methods for article 334.
Roger
Click to expand...

That on its own merit is a really crappy reason to change the code, it implies that we are not smart enough to figure out what cable to use, doesn't matter if it is true some times.:grin:
 
acrwc10 said:
That on its own merit is a really crappy reason to change the code,
Click to expand...
And I agree with my hands on my hips in disgust

acrwc10 said:
it implies that we are not smart enough to figure out what cable to use, doesn't matter if it is true some times.:grin:
Click to expand...

And so in your opinion, if we use it for a feeder or branch circuit that would fall under 310.16 at a rating above 60 deg it is a hazzard but, if we use this cable for a Main Feeder per 310.15(B)(6) through an attic at a 90 deg rating it has magically become safe. :wink:

BTW, back when you first heard that AFCI's were going to be required for all residential circuits in a future code cycle, did you start doing it even though it was not a requirement yet?

Roger
 
roger said:
Now all kidding aside, If I had bid a project using a code compliant wiring method that was going to change at sometime down the road and this change would hit me in the pocket, you can bet that I'm going to use the method that was legal at the time I bid the project.
Click to expand...
Around here, we can only get away with building what was compliant at the time of the permit, not the bid.

Looks like another idea for the contract fine print, below the materials-cost clause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top